Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
City Council Agenda Packet 08-26-1996
AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday, August 26, 1986 - 7 p.m. Mayor: Brad Fyle Council Members: Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst, Brian Stumpf, Tom Perrault 1. Call to order. 2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held August 12, 1996. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. 4. Citizens commentstpetitions, requests, and complaints. 6. Consent agenda. A. Consideration of authorizing a temporary gambling license -- St. Henry's Catholic Church. 6. Consideration of items removed from the consent agenda for discussion. 7. Consideration of an amendment to the zoning ordinance by establishing a new zoning district known as B -3A (highway automotive related use) district. Applicant, Investors Together. 8. Consideration of amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance regulating the number, size, and use of accessory buildings in residential zoning districts. Applicant, Planning Commission. 9. Consideration of granting an increase to the individual pension for Volunteer Firefighter Relief Association members. 10. Consideration of requests to amend the Urban Service Area boundaries. Applicants, Art Anderson and Orrin Thompson Homes. 11. Consideration of renewing membership in Wright County Economic Development Partnership, 12. Consideration of increasing the 1997 police contract hours with Wright County Sheriffs Department. 13. Review of SBR manufacturer bids and consideration of award for contract for shop drawings for wastewater treatment plant expansion. Agenda Monticello City Council August 26, 1996 Page 2 14. Consideration of approval of plans and specifications and cost estimate of wastewater treatment plant expansion. 16. Consideration of next contract phase with HDR to advertise for bids, review bids, and make recommendations for award of contract for wastewater treatment plant expansion, Task 3.0. 16. Consideration of feasibility study and cost estimate to add septage receiving station to the expanded wastewater treatment plant. 17. Consideration of adopting a resolution approving Monticello Heartland Express 1997 Budget and Transit Assistance Application. 18. Consideration of approving bills for the month of August. 19. Adjournment. MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday, August 12, 1988 - 7 p.m. Members Present: Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst, Brian Stumpf, Tom Perrault Members Absent: Brad Fyle Acting Mayor Shirley Anderson called the meeting to order. .o gid ra ion of approval of minutes of the rA alar meeting 1935. Brian Stumpf requested that the minutes be checked to see if they should include the appointment of Bridget Baldwin to the Police Commission. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY CLINT HERBST AND SECONDED BY TOM PERRAULT TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD JULY 22, 1996. Motion carried unanimously with Brad Fyle absent. .o aid ration of od ing iterng to the neem n. This item was added to the end of the agenda. A. Carol Bloomdahl, owner of the property now occupied by Little Mountain Books, requested financial assistance to help with paying for stucco application to the cast side of his building. Bloomdahl noted that the insurance award associated with the damage resulting from the recent collapse of the adjoining building was not sufficient to cover the cost to stucco the side of his building. He also noted that in Elk River, the City assisted with repairs to a retail business downtown. Shirley Anderson noted that the Monticello Community Partners, working with the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, are developing a plan for the area that could impact the Bloomdahl property. She would hesitate to commit (Ends to projects in the area prior to completion of the MCP/HRA planning effort. Pogo 1 (3 Council Minutes - 8/12196 It was the consensus of the Council that consideration of this request should come only after completion of the MCP/HRA planning effort, which will be completed in a few months. Conaentagenda. Councilme ober Tom Perrault requested that item 5A, allowing a simple subdivision for the Phyllis Link property, and item 5B, allowing a simple subdivision of the Ron Ruff property, be removed from the consent agenda for discussion. Councilmember Brian Stumpf requested that item 5E, allowing the fire department to conduct a house burn for training purposes, be removed from the consent agenda for discussion. A. Consideration ofAllomring n simple subdivision. Applicant. Phy11iR Link. Removed from the consent agenda for discussion. B. Consideration of allowing n simple guhdivisioa Applicant Ron Ruff Removed from the consent agenda for discussion. C. Consideration of reviewing Greater Mon i llo.nt rpn_see Fund (GMF.F1 Loan No. 014 (StandardIron) for compliance with the GMEF guidelines• Recommendation: Support the EDA decision by determining that GMEF Loan No. 013 for Standard Iron (SELUEMED Limited Liability Partnership) was approved without violation of the GMEF guidelines. D. Con_gideration of ap nin ins election judges for the 1996 pri n trener I Acefians. Recommendation: Appoint election judges as presented. E. Co gid ration o igs annce of nn open b`��in¢�nermiit to rim dPpnrlment to conduct a hnimp burn for ining purpom. Removed from the consent agendn for discussion. A MOTION WAS MADE BY CLINT HERBST AND SECONDED BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON TO APPROVE ITEMS 5C AND 5D ON THE CONSENT AGENDA AS RECOMMENDED. Motion carried unanimously with Brad Fyle absent. Page 2 (0 Council Minutes - 8/12/86 5A. Conaaideration of glinwine a simple suhdiviaion- Applicant- P yllia Link. AND 5B. Consideration of Allowing a simple HubdivLion. Applicant Ron Ruff. Assistant Administrator OWeill explained that Ron Ruff and Phyllis Link have each requested simple subdivision approval to allow the subdivision of their respective properties into two buildable lots. The Link property would initially be divided into three parcels. Parcel C would be conveyed to Mr. Ruff, who would then combine it with his property and split his new property into two 12,000 sq ft lots. O'Neill noted that each of the new lots will meet the ordinance standards for lot size and width. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY TOM PERRAULT AND SECONDED BY CLINT HERBST TO APPROVE BOTH SIMPLE SUBDIVISIONS AS REQUESTED. Motion carried unanimously with Brad Fyle absent. Stove George, training officer for the Monticello Fire Department, noted that the fire department personnel has few opportunities to gain experience in fighting house fires. The Banyai property is in a good location for a training exercise, as there is good separation between the property and homes in the area. He also noted that departments from around the area will also be participating in the training exercise. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STUMPF AND SECONDED BY CLINT HERBST TO APPROVE ISSUANCE OF AN OPENING BURNING PERMIT TO THE MONTICELLO FIRE DEPARTMENT TO ALLOW A HOUSE BURN FOR TRAINING PURPOSES AT THE INTERSECTION OF BROADWAY CIRCLE AND COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY 75. Motion carried unanimously with Brad Fyle absent. Page 3 0C;,' Council Minutes - 8/12/96 11: I'-# .11 111:1 1' I,W: .111 •--% 11 I WTv--l-TW1', 111 11 .•11 I' 1 I.M. I 1 : I 111 : I 1 6 \I Assistant Administrator O'Neill explained that Ron Hall has requested a special home occupation permit to operate a furniture repair and refinishing office at his residence at 413 East River Street. The proposed business exceeds the requirements of a permitted home occupation by conducting the business in an accessory building and providing repair services, which requires equipment other than customarily found in a home. Therefore, the processing of a special home occupation is necessary. O'Neill went on to note that according to the application provided by Hall, most of the work done on site is in the garage. No other person other than the resident will conduct the furniture repair business, and he intends to make furniture pickup and drop off himself at the customer's place of residence. O'Neill also noted that the applicant wishes to make a separate connection to the city sewer and water service directly to the garage. Brian Stumpf was concerned about possible fumes associated with furniture refinishing. O'Neill noted that a condition of the permit requires that no odors be present. Stumpf recommended that random visits to the site be made during the first year of operation and that neighbors should be asked if the home occupation operation intrudes on the residential characteristics of the neighborhood. This information could be used in determining whether or not to renew the home occupation permit in 1898. O'Neill reported that the Planning Commission conducted the public hearing on this matter, and there were no objections to the conditional use permit expressed by area residents. Planning Commission recommended approval based on a finding that the operation of the home occupation as proposed could be transparent to the neighborhood and, thus, would not impact the residential character. The proposal is, therefore, compatible with the comprehensive plan's goal of maintaining quality neighborhoods. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY CLINT HERBST AND SECONDED BY TOM PERRAULT TO GRANT THE SPECIAL HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT FOR RON BALL TO OPERATE A FURNITURE REPAIR AND REFINISHING OFFICE AT HIS RESIDENCE AT 413 EAST RIVER STREET. THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: ALL CONDITIONS IDENTIFIED BY ORDINANCE. Pago 4 0 Council Minutes - 8/17/96 SOLID WASTE RESULTING FROM COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY AT THE RESIDENCE MUST BE DISPOSED OF VIA PRIVATE CONTRACT. APPLICANT MUST OBTAIN APPROVAL FROM THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AND THE POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY TO DISCHARGE FURNITURE REFINISHING CHEMICALS INTO THE CITY SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM. Motion carried unanimously with Brad Fyle absent. Motion is based on the finding that the operation of the home occupation as proposed could be transparent to the neighborhood and, thus, would not impact the residential character. The proposal is, therefore, compatible with the comprehensive plan's goal of maintaining quality neighborhoods. Brian Stumpf noted that with the absence of Brad Fyle and the need to obtain a 4/6 vote to approve zoning ordinance amendments, it would make sense to table item N8, the public hearing on consideration of an amendment to the zoning ordinance establishing a new zoning district known as B•3A (neighborhood automotive related use district), and also consider tabling item q9, consideration of the amendments to the zoning ordinance regulating accessory buildings. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STUMPF AND SECONDED BY CLINT HERBST TO TABLE ITEMS 08 AND M9 TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND TO EXTEND THE LIMITED MORATORIUM ON ACCESSORY BUILDINGS TO AUGUST 26, 1996. Motion carried unanimously with Brad Fyle absent. 10. Co aid raLnn of n9p_rovvinff rxpnnaion of in^nr license n IP's Annex to include an outdoor sen ins grog. Rob Hoffman, owner of J.P.'s Annex restaurant and bar at the Hillside Partnership's mall, requested expansion of his restaurant and bar business by establishing an outdoor seating area at the rear of the facility. The proposed expansion would utilize six of the existing parking spaces at the rear of the building. Council was asked to consider modifying the on -sale Page 5 9 Council Minutes - 8/12/96 liquor license to include an outdoor seating area and to determine if the expansion could occur under the existing conditional use permit and to determine the need for expansion of parking to offset the loss of spaces resulting from the outdoor seating area. Clint Herbst expressed concerns regarding establishing an outdoor eating area adjacent to the 7th Street apartments. He was concerned about late night noise and lights. Rob Hoffman noted that he would like to be able to compete with other establishments that have outdoor dining. He noted that he would make sure that noise and activity would be maintained in a manner that would not disturb people living in the area. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY CLINT HERBST TO DENY APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE LIQUOR LICENSE THAT WOULD ALLOW OUTDOOR EATING AREA AND TO DENY APPROVAL TO EXPAND THE USE OF THE FACILITY WITHOUT DEVELOPMENT OF ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES. Motion failed due to lack of a second. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY TOM PERRAULT AND SECONDED BY BRIAN STUMPF TO TABLE CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING EXPANSION OF THE LIQUOR LICENSE AT J.P.'S ANNEX AND TO RECOMMEND THAT THE APPLICANT REQUEST AN AMENDMENT TO THE CURRENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ALLOWING OPERATION OF THE STRIP MALURESTAURANT FACILITY. Voting in favor: Tom Perrault, Brian Stumpf, Shirley Anderson. Opposed: Clint Herbst. Absent: Brad Fylo. Motion passed. City Administrator Rick Wolfsteller reported that liquor store sales were up $76,900 for the first six months to a total of $832,000. This is approximately a 10'b increase over the same period last year. Grose profits from these sales also increased by $25,900, which is a 15% increase to a six-month total of $199,021. With regard to the bottom line operating income, the income for the first six months is also up substantially over the same period last year to $100,000, which is n $35,000 increase over last year. Wolfsteller went on to review the pay structure for part-time employees at the liquor store. He noted that the step system was set up to allow a part- time liquor store clerk to receive a step increase based on the number of hours worked, each step being the equivalent of six months' employment. Since many of the part-time employees work varying hours, some as little as 5.10 hours a week, it takes a long time for an individual to be eligible for any typo of raise after they aro hired. With the current 1996 pay scale beginning at $5.46 per hour, the Liquor Stom Manager has been having a difficult time Page 6 C_-) ) Council Minutes - 8/12/96 retaining good employees at this beginning pay scale. In today's market, most reliable individuals looking for part-time work can likely receive more than this per hour even working at fast food establishments. As a result, the liquor store has experienced high turnover, not only due to low beginning pay but also due to the fact that it can take a year or longer before any type of increase is received. Wolfsteller went on to recommend that the City Council adopt a higher pay at the beginning step and to change the number of hours required to receive a step increase from six months' employment to three months' employment. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STUMPF AND SECONDED BY CLINT HERBST TO ACCEPT THE SIX-MONTH FINANCIAL REPORT AS PRESENTED AND AUTHORIZE PART-TIME CLERK BEGINNING PAY STRUCTURE TO BE INCREASED TO $5.75 AN HOUR FROM $5.46 AN HOUR AND LOWER THE NUMBER OF HOURS REQUIRED BEFORE THE SECOND STEP INCREASE TO 520 HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT OR AFTER SIX MONTHS, WHICHEVER COMES FIRST. Voting in favor: Brian Stumpf, Clint Herbst, Shirley Anderson. Opposed: Tom Perrault. It was Perrault's view that the increase in pay should be based solely on hours worked and not in any way dependent on length of employment. It was his view that linking increases to hours worked would be the fairest way to determine when an employee receives the step increase. Motion passed with Brad Fyle absent. 12. f nnaideraf ion of renewing membership iR n Wright .o +nty Economic I)evelnpment Partnership. A MOTION WAS MADE BY CLINT HERBST AND SECONDED BY TOM PERRAULT TO TABLE THIS ITEM PENDING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. Motion carried unanimously with Brad Fylo absent. 13. Co sideration of approval of color logo and lettering plan for the old wa sir ow r• Public Works Director John Simola informed Cho City Council that City staff has met with Councilmember Shirley Anderson and members of the Monticello Community Partners (MCP) Design Committee on two occasions to work out the color selection and placement of the logo. The group determined that in addition to the logo, the name "Monticello" should also be included in a wrapping text between the logos and that the water tower should be painted a two-tone blue, dark blue for the railings, legs, and ladder, and light blue for the standpipo and tank. Page 7 (D Council Minutes - 8/12/96 AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY CLINT HERBST AND SECONDED BY BRIAN STUMPF TO AWARD THE PAINTING CONTRACT TU PITTSBURG TANK AND TOWER OF HENDERSON, KENTUCKY, AT A COST OF $22,075, AND TO APPROVE THE COLOR SELECTION, LOGO PLACEMENT, AND LETTERING AS RECOMMENDED BY THE DESIGN COMMITTEE AT AN ADDITIONAL ESTIMATED COST OF $5,900, AND LIMIT THE COST OF THE ADDITION OF THE WORD MONTICEULO TO $1,500. Voting in favor. Brian Stumpf, Clint Herbst, Shirley Anderson. Opposed: Tom Perrault. Perrault indicated that he was opposed because the water tower as a landmark is not significant enough to justify the expenditure. Motion passed with Brad Fyle absent. 14. Consideration of chs gr in boulevard mowingpras. Public Works Director John Simola requested that the City Council consider authorizing a change to the city mowing practices, which would eliminate mowing of certain private areas and other areas within the city boulevard. Simola noted that there are a few areas around the community where we have been mowing the boulevards adjoining private property. These have been mowed as a matter of practice, not policy, and have most likely been done to improve the appearance of properties continually neglected by property owners. Simola noted that with the work load ever increasing for mowing services and questions as to why we only mow these boulevards, it appears it is time to re-evaluate whether we should be mowing these selected areas at all. Perhaps we should have never started mowing them in the Bret place. Simola went on to list the boulevard locations that are currently being mowed. Clint Herbst noted that we should not be mowing some boulevard areas and not others. It is better that we're consistent with regard to our mowing practices. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STUMPF AND SECONDED BY TOM PERRAULT TO DISCONTINUE MOWING OF THE BOULEVARDS LISTED AFTER A 30 -DAY NOTICE TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS. Motion carried unanimously with Brad Fylo absent. ,, , a,.., „,., lime m. , ,� • e u, Economic Development Director 011io Koropchak noted that the Econuaric Development Authority requested that City Council review the proposed Guideline changes for approval. Under the sections of the GMEF Guidelines pertaining to the loan fee, it was recommended that the loan fee be paid by Page 8 (a) Council Minutes - 8/12196 the applicant to the EDA within 5 working days after City Council approval of the GMEF loan. The purpose of this amendment is to encourage applicant commitment and timely commencement of the project. Under the second amendment, the Guidelines would be changed to say that the 180 -day nonperformance date can be extended up to an additional 120 days. In order to obtain the extension, a written request must be received 30 days prior to expiration of the 180 -day nonperformance date and is subject to approval of the EDA membership by a majority vote. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY CLINT HERBST AND SECONDED BY TOM PERRAULT TO APPROVE MODIFYING THE GMEF GUIDELINE PROVISIONS AS RECOMMENDED BY THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY. Motion carried unanimously with Brad Fyle absent. 16. Consideration nfmiettinp, a date for a workahnn to review the 1947 preliminary h LP — After discussion, it was the consensus of Council to set the date of September 9, 1996, at 6 p.m., for the purpose of reviewing the 1997 preliminary budget and for the purpose of establishing the maximum levy that the City would propose for budget year 1997. 17. Other mntters. 3A. ronwld raLon of nn off r to purrhnAe Lots 1 and 2 Block 1 Oakwood Industrial Park 2nd Addition - Lnkp Tool. City Administrator Rick Wolfsteller reported that Eric Bondhus of Lake Tool made an offer to purchase Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Oakwood Industrial Park 2nd Addition, from the City of Monticello. Wolfsteller went on to note that Lake Tool is a small tool and die company currently located in a rental facility between Simonson Lumber and H - Window. The two lots had been previously held for possible purchase by the H -Window Company. Wolfsteller reminded Council that H - Window decided not to continue with its option agreement. As a result, the lots are again available for sale. Bondhus made an offer of $21,000 per acre for the two lots, which consists of 2.6 acres, which amounts to a total purchase price of $64,600. Page 9 G) Council Minutes - 8/12/98 Wolfsteller went on to note that Lake Tool is proposing to construct a masonry or block building of approximately 8,000 sq R for the first phase. While the building is not extremely large, they hope to expand as they grow and would like to acquire both lots to enable them to expand in the future. Finally, Wolfsteller noted that when Lake Tool had inquired about the availability of these lots, Wolfsteller made an attempt to see if H - Window had a change of heart and might still want to purchase the lots from the City. Wolfsteller noted that he did not receive any response from his letter; therefore, he assumes that H -Window is not interested in acquiring the lots in the future. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY CLINT HERBST AND SECONDED BY TOM PERRAULT TO MAKE A COUNTEROFFER OF 623,995 PER ACRE FOR THE TWO PROPERTIES, WHICH EQUALS A TOTAL OF 662,388 FOR THE TWO LOTS COMBINED, IF LAKE TOOL INTENDS TO REQUEST TAX INCREMENT ASSISTANCE FROM THE HRA IF TAX INCREMENT ASSISTANCE IS NOT REQUESTED, THE PER -ACRE PRICE WOULD BE REDUCED TO 622,000. Motion carried unanimously. There being no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned. Jeff' O'Neill Assistant Administrator Page 10 G) Council Agenda - 8/26/96 • � 1 As part of the annual Fall Festival, St. Henry's Church has requested approval of a two-day gambling license, September 14 and 16. In order to receive the permit from the State Gambling Control Board, the City must first adopt a resolution indicating the City has no objection to the permit being issued. In addition to the gambling license, Church officials may be requesting a 2 - day temporary beer license at the neat meeting on September 9, 1996. Adopt the resolution approving the issuance of the temporary two-day license. Do not adopt the resolution supporting the license application. C_ STAFF RFCOMMF.NDATION: Since the Church has obtained a temporary license annually, the staff is not aware of any reason why the Council would not support the issuance of the license this year. As a result, it is recommended the resolution be adopted. D. SUPPORTING DATA; Copy of resolution. RESOLUTION e6 - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF A GAMBLING LICENSE WHEREAS, the Church of St. Henry has submitted an application to the City Council of Monticello for the issuance of a charitable gambling license for September 14 and lb, 1996, as part of their Annual Fall Festival in Monticello, Minnesota; 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. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL that the Church of'St. Henry application for a gambling license listed above is hereby approved, and the State Gambling Control Board is authorized to process the application. Adopted by the City Council this 26th day of August, 19%. Mayor City Administrator 544- Council Agenda - 8/26/96 Please see the attached planning report from Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. On August 6, 1996 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on this matter, reviewed the proposed amendment, and recommended denial of the establishment of the "B -3A" District based on the finding that the current district regulations for B-1(Urnited Business), B-2 (Neighborhood Business), B-3 (Highway Business), and B-4 (Regional Business) are adequate and properly define distinct business districts. Development of an additional business district is, therefore, not necessary. There was public testimony from some neighbors that opposed intensification of "automobile" related uses in the vicinity of the River Road Plaza. Specifically, Dan Gassler, Pastor of A Glorious Church, believed that an automobile maintainence facility would produce a level of noise (air wrenches) that would impact adjoining properties. Two additional planning agenda items relating to the auto lube facility were tabled by the Planning Commission pending further discussion and action by City Council on the B -3A Zoning Amendment. These items include: a request to amend the zoning map, and a request for a conditional use permit which would allow the auto lube facility to operate in the new zoing district. For your information, 1 have included the reports on these items for your review. No action can be taken on these items until the Planning Commission makes a formal recommendation. If the City Council approves the establishment of the B•3A District, the map amendment and the conditional use permit request will be on the city council agenda one month from now. Please see the attached report for information and alternatives. PORTING DATA., NAC report; B•2 regulations; B-3 regulations with summary listing of B-3 conditional uses; Comments fivm Dan Mielke; Additional lnfo••Atinutes and staff repoM moarding previous mque*W Letters fmas neighboring prqpen*y owner. FA r-L1i:V0 NN- u ..- .--. . ..-Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. C O M M U N I T Y PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET R ESE A Al C M MEMORANDUM TO: Monticello Planning Commission Jeff O'Neill FROM: Stephen Grittman DATE: August 1, 1996 RE: Monticello - Zoning Ordinance Amendment - B -3A District FILE NO: 191.06 - 96.06 Conaideratlan of an Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance establishing a now Zoning Dieftt, known as "B -3A. Neighborhood Autwwtive Related Use District". Applicant - Monticello Planning Commission. A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The City recently timed down a request to add Automotive Mairrternar= facilities, such as Oil and Lube shops, to the B-2 or Pill Districts, which would have allowed Investors Together to construct such a facility near fie Total Mart station on east County 75. A follow up approach being proposed Is the establishment of a IUnited business district In the area which would permit the type of commercial establishment requested by Investors Together. However, them was cancan that a B-3 District would not be appropriate in this location, since it would allow the full range of automotive related uses. As a mutt, a modified B-3 District, labotod'83A' Is presented for the Cttys I:onslderation. This district is internded to allow Whited Commercial uses which aro d a oonvenlence nature and conpasiblo with neighborhood residential uses. Sir= the discussion of this iasis was generated by the Investors Together proposal for a o1flube facility, staff has Ineonxte ted this use into the new district, utilizing the orderia which were discussed in the previous text amendment proposal. 5775 Wayzata Blvd. - Suite 555 - St. Louis Park. MN 55416 - (612) 595 -9636 -Fax. 595-9837 PLG -01- :sS 1520 MFC 612 SSS 5837 P.Qy89 The need for this district essentially comes down to whether the City believes that its current zoning districts do an adequate job of providing a full range of business opportunity. Staff has suggested that there is a need for a better definition of downtown commercial in order to accomplish the objectives of the Com prehensive Plan. The oiulube facility would currently fit within the B-3 District along with other auto -related businesses, and the City was not inclined to change this at the time of the previous request. The Monticello Community Partners have also been studying theses issues, primarily from the perspective of the effect on downtown commercial center activity. The concern which was raised over the *Automotive Maintenance' use, as distinguished from 'Automotive Repair' is that it would be difficult to regulate the maintenance use and keep it from expanding into a more intensive activity. For instance, the ordinance suggests that the intent of the Conditional Use is to allow' while -you -wait' services. Assuming that the business will have busy periods, some stacking and parking of vehicles will probably occur. This becomes a problem for the City when the storage lasts for more than a few minutes. Is one hour too long? One afternoon? All day? The City would be requtred to monitor how long individual vehicles are being stored on-site to ascertain compliance. Moreover, as the business grows and expands its range of services, this problem could become more intense. A second concern is whether or not such facilities are truly'neighborhood convenience commeraaP. ft has been suggested that neighborhood convenience infers frequent trips, such as the convenience store, the gasoline station, or even the car wash. Under this definition, automotive maintenance would be exchded since it Is tikey to attract business from any particular consumer at a rate of one trip per every two or three months. With such infrequent patronage, such a use should be located In areas of similar patronage. Approve the Zorung Ordinance Amendment cleating a '&W District as submitted. Approval of the amendment should be be upon Whigs which Identify a need for the Zoning district to provide adequate business opportunity, in conformance with the Comprehensive Ptah. Approve the Zoning Ordinance Amendment creating a 'B.W District, as amended in discussion. if the City believes that the B -3A District is an important toot to provide, end control, business opporAt *, but that the list of proposed uses in the dreg district ordinance needs to be changed, this Aftemattve should be chosen. The City should Included findings as to the need for tho now district in achieving the goals of the Comprehensivo Plan. FLG d_-1-SSc 1501 19 -IC pc[ J— x. 3. Denial of the Ordinance amendment creating a'B-3A' District This option should be Based upon a finding that the current zoning districts adequatey further the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, at least in the areas which would be affected by this amendment C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: We recommend dental of the B -3A District Amendment In our view, the current B-2 and B3 Districts do a reasonable job d albwirtg the various types of commerdal uses, without a loss of Land use control. As we had suggested in discussions regarding implementation tithe Comprehensive Plan, the primary concern over the City's Zoning Ordinance lies In the need to better address a downtown district Staff believes that the dtsthctiot between Automotive Repair and Autom*m MafMenance could be a legitimate one. However, the problems with future growth, and the City's role in enforcement would override the d>stirction. We do riot believe that the City can say that changing oil is fine, but dianging Delta is not The City may regulated the impacts on land use. The attempt to distinguish between the two uses is based on impacts, such as the storage of automobiles for service. As noted previously. as the business grows, this Issue is likely to become more difficult for the City to enforce. Previously, the Clty hes said that it would ftot approve the additlon of Automotive Maintenance to the B-2 DLgft due to these eame concerns. We have seen nothing that would aper the C Ve view of this issue. Vfte the B -3A District Is a soft of bridge between 8-2 and B-3 uses, the iwA of erdoroem ent for the Automotive Maintenance would still be present Draft Ordinance 7C.) PUG -01-1556 15:01 NPC 612 555 5837 P.05/29 Ctty Of d'Iandeel al Nannesota Ordinance AN ORDNANCE AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTERS 4 AND 13 OF THE MON ICEL LO CITY CODE, KNOWN AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BY ADDING A NEW DMWCT TO BE KNOWN AS 'B -3A, NEIGHBORHOOD AUTO -RELATED BUSINESS DISTRICT' AS CHAPTER 13A. The City Coancil of the City of MondctUo hereby ordains: Sectfoa L Chapter 4, Subd. (B] is hereby alaended to lead as f flows: [Bi BUSINESS DISTRICTS: 1. B-1, neighborhood business district 1. B-2, limited business district 3. B-3, highway business district 4. B -3A, neighborhood auto -related business district S. B-4, regional business district Section 1. Chapter 13 is hereby amendbd by adding the following: CRAFTS& 13A 'B -3W NErMMORROOD AUTO -RELATED BUSINESS DISTRICT SECTION: 13A -i: Purpose 13A-2: Permitted Uses 13A-3: Permitted Accessory Uses 13A-4: Conditional Uses 13A-1: PURPOSE: The purpose of the '8-3W Neighborhood Auto related Business District is to establish appropriate locations for neighborhood commercial areas which provide convenience or automobile related services for local markets, but not intensive automotive sales or repair. This district should be located in areas of good intra- cottmm=ity access, and may be in close proximity to -ID ALC -01-1956 15:01 W -C 612 Svz `zbse r. Gb/aS residential areas -here substantial steps are made to mitigate possible adverse effects of commercial use on the neighborhood. The B -3A Dietrict will be distinguished from the more inclusive B-3 District which will also allow commercial uses which attract a significant level of regional traffic in addition to local markets. 13A-2: PERNr= USES: The following are permitted uses in a 'B- 3A' district: (A] All permitted uses as allowed in a 'B-1' and 'B-2' district. (B] Auto accessory sales store, but not service. (C] Private clubs or lodges as permitted in a 'B-3' district. 13A-3: ACCESSORY USES: The following are ]permitted accessory uses in a '8-3A' district: (A] All permitted accessory uses as allowed in a 'B-2• district. 13A-4: CONDITIONAL USES: The following are conditional uses in a 'B -3A' district. (A] C0ME CIAL RECREATIONAL USES, PROVIDED THAT: 1. Setbacks and site design for all buildings comply with the buffer sone requirements of Section 3.3 CGI of the Monticello zoning ordinance. 2. Access is provided via a street which does not interfere with residential local street access. 3. No outdoor storage is allowed on the property. 4. The provisions of Chapter 22 of the Monticello zoning Ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. [B1 RESTAMLAn, CAFE, OR TSA AODM, PROVIDED TBATi 1. The business meets the definition of restaurant is this Ordinaaee, and is not a 'convenience'. 'fast food', or 'drive through' restaurant. 2. Setbacks and site design for all buildings -p( kc -e1-19% 15:e1 NFC 612 595 SZiSI H.V/e9 comply with the buffer zone requirements of Section 3-3 (G) of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. 3. The business is not a tavern or bar. 4. The primary access is from a collector street, or non-residential local street. 5. The provisions of Chapter 22 of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. [C] CARWASHES (DRIVE T;MOUGH, MECHANICAL, AND SELF SERVICE) PROVIDED THAT: 1. The requirements of Section 13-4 (B1 of this ordinance are met. [D] DAY CAR CENTERS, PROVIDED TEAT: 1. The requirements of Section 13-4 [01 of this Ordinance are met. [E1 AUTOMOBILE MA=FrENANCE FACILITIES PROVIDED THAT: 1. 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. 2. The use of the facility is limited to short term, while you wait, automobile maintenance activities and not automobile repair as defined in this Ordinance. 3. Buffer yard requirements of Chapter 3. Section 3.0 of this Ordinance are satisfied. 4. Hach light standard island and all islands in the parking lot shall be landscaped or covered. s. Parking spaces shall be screened from view of abutting residential districtsin co�liance with Chapter 3, Section 2(G1 0! this Ordinance. 6. The entire area other than occupied by the buildings or plantings shall be surfaced with satorlal which will control dust and drainage which is subject to the approval of the City 1F RJG-01-19% 1501 NPC sic ws M— r.ua.uo Engineer. 7. The entire area shall have a drainage system which is subject to t1 --e approval of the City Engineer. 8. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source is not visible from the public right-of-way or from an abutting residence and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 CE) of this Ordinance. 9. Vehicular access points shall be limited, shall create a minimum of conflict with through traffic movement, and shall be subject to the approval of tha City Engineer. 10. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 9 of this Ordina re. 11. Provisions are made to control and reduce noise. 12. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this Ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. 13. Automobile maintenance facility shall have direct access to major thoroughfare via driveway or frontage toad. 14. Intermittent sounds produced by automobile maintenance facility shall not be audible to users of adjoining DZM or residantial properties. (8) OMeMC—•-AL PLANNED M= DSVMOPMRNT, PROVIDED THAT: 1. The requirements of chapters 20 and 22 of this Ordinance are met. Sadden 3. Wo 10, Sectioc 2-2 of ft MmdceQo City Code ('lacing Dcflddama) L be:eby amended to add the fb0owing: AN (1) AUraCl3nZ DOMMENANCS PACSLrrY: A business which provides short term, while you wait, automobile maintenance service to automobiles and light trucks of cine thousand (9,000) GVW or lees. Service activities include oil changing, lubrication, tire rotation and the like but: in no came may include -7 6- RUQ -01-1996 1502 NRC 612 555 9857 P. 09/09 repair activities. Automobile maintenance facilities shall be distinguished from minor automobile repair facilities in that only while you wait service may be provided and vehicular storage shall be prohibited. Secdon o. This Ordinance scan take effect and be is fan f=e from sud after its pa&up and publicadm Bnd Fele, mayor ATrM: Rick wol MUCr, A AYES: NAYS: Iff TOTRL P.09 ,. .{A—JI-IiM a' ' " 'A �' C Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. C ON! MUNITY PLANNING • OaSIG N MARKET FIE SEARCN e `1y VA jL MEMORANDUM TO: Monticello Planning Commission Jeff O'Neill FROM: Stephen Grittman DATE: August 1, 1996 RE: Monticello - Rezoning of the PDN Disbrtct Area at County 75, 39, 8118 FILE NO: 191.06 - 96.08 Consideration of Rezoning property cumIlly zoned "PZM" east of the City's wastowatlor trsatrnent plan and north of county 75. Applicant - Investors Together and Monticello Planning Comndsslon. This rezoning request has been initiated by Investors Together to affect tr"k property along County Road 75. and has been expartded by the City to include consldoration of tho appropriate zoning In the entire area, Linked to this request is the consideration of a new commercial zoning district, and subsequently„ Investors Topot ws requost for a Conditional Use Pormit for an Automotive IVA htenanee fealty. At Issue is tho current PZM designation of the land In this arae. The PZM district b a mixed use district which allows a full range of residential uses, from single family to multiple family, and all of the commercial uses in the 8-1 end 8-2 districts. 83 District uses aro not allowed In the PZM area. The flexibility, given by the PZM approach also tames with o certain amount of confusion. Under PZM, neither the City nor the property owner have a Gear pkLr0 of what land was should be allowed vvtttart ttis diredlon, the property owner can not know what the City expects, and the Cky may be faced with requests for land uses which it doesn't want but cannot reasonably deny. Is 5775 Wayzata Blvd. - Suite 555 - St. Louis Park, MN 55416 -(612) 595 -9636 -Fax. 595-9aa7 As a result, we believe that a better definition to the pattern of zoning in this area would be beneficial. If the City adopts the 8-3A District, this would likely be the most appropriate commercial designation for at least a part of the area. If the City does not adopt the 8-3A District, a choice must be made between B-2 and B-3. In either scenario, the extent of commercial zoning should be defined, so as to better determine the appropriate uses on other area property. The future land use of the area at the junction of County Roads 75, 39, and 118 is affected by several issues. One of the Comprehensive Plan Issues which received a great deal of attention is the traffic on County 75 between the downtown area and the Interstate. Among the options considered were traffic calming efforts along Broadway, potential re- routing of through traffic to another location, and retaining the current pattern In order to behefit downtown business. Monticello Community Partners are currently studying the possible options, particularly in view of the impacts to downtown business. In our view, the network of major transportation outlets in this area Justify a certain level of commercial land use in this area. The Comprehensive Plan suggests that the City's primary commercial areas will be the downtown area north of 1-94, and the emerging growth area south of 1-94. However, limited convenience commercial is important in other areas to avoid over -utilization of major commercial zones. The very concept of convenience commercial is to allow comparatively taw volume, shcrt duration trips to occur outside of the main commercial districts. For many Monticello residents, the area in question is an area which is frequented in daily traffic patterns. This area makes sense as a site for a small concentration of convenience commercial activity. The question becomes whether the appropriate zone should be B-2 or B-3 (or B -3A if approved). The 8-3 District allows several automotive related land uses, including automotive repair, motels, and other similar uses. The B-2 District allows primarily low intensity retail uses, and some limited convenience uses, including car washes end convenience store/gasoline stations. Essentially, the B-2 District attempts to capture existing local traffic, whereas the 8-3 District attempts to capture both local and non-focal traffic. With those guideUnes In mind. the B,2 District would be appropriate N the City believes that the traffic in this area should be either doflected to other routes, or kept In place. This is because if the traffic is rerouted, R would be assumed that the purpose was to put the traffic whero it can best bonefit the commercial areas identified in the Comprehensive Plan. if the traffic is to be left In place, it would be assumed that the purpose of this choke would be to continue to encourage that traffic to get to the downtown area as officiently as possible. Under either scenario, a B-3 District would be intercepting a share of the non- focal traffic, counter to the objective of the traffic plan. while a certain amount of convenience traffic Is non -local as well, the primary objective of the B-2 District is to serve focal traffic. Thus, the choice of routing of traffic would be Irrelevant to the success of tho district and the B-2 uses would'compete' less with other, more intense, commercial districts. As to the extent of the commercial district, we have provided a proposed map which would delineate a limited amount of land for commercial rezoning at this time. Since this district is not intended to be a primary business zone, regardless of zoning designation, limiting its size is considered important to helping ensure the success of the other commercial areas in the City. Residential uses are therefore shown for the other PZM zoned land in the area. Due to the high traffic levels and proximity to the Interstate (and Its associated noise), these areas are not viewed as prime single family development land. We would recommend that the City consider mid- to high-density residarilal uses for these properties. Zoning for these uses would be accomplished at a future hearing. In order to maintain control of both density and quality of design, we would recommend consideration of a Planned Unit Development District designation. Approve a rezoning of the abod area, as Mustrated on the attached Map 1, to the new B -3A District. This alternative would be appropriate if the City approves the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which creates the B -3A District Suggested findings would include the Chys Intent to permit limited convenience and auto -related commercial uses in this high-volume commuter traffic route. 2. Approve a rezoning of the subject mea, as illustrated on the attadted Map 2, to the B-2 District This alternative would be appropriate if the City believes that limited convenience commercial land use in the arae is needed to Provide reasonable commercial opportunity to the east side of the community, but to avoid competltlen with the primary commercial areas as designated In the Comprohonsive Plan. Findings should Include a statement as to tho compatibility of this proposal with the Comprehensive Plan objectives and land uses. 3. Approve a rezoning of the subject area, as illustrated an the attached Map 3, to the B-3 District This altemativo would be appropriate if the City believes that due to location and traftic capacity, the area should socommodato mora Interteive commercial use than the 5-2 or B -3A DlsWds allow. Suggested findings would Include discussion of traffic volumes prosent in the area due to commuter traffic, through traffic, and the proximity to the High School and Hospital campuses. trJU-cll-l7�0 1�:t15 �••� --- -' Denial of the rezoning from PZM to any commerCW district. This option would be appropriate if the City believes that the PZM district provides a reasonable amours of tlaxbility in accommodating various mcced land uses in the area. Staff recommends rezoning the area shown on Map 2 to 8-2. As noted In the previous discussion, the City has designated other areas, including the downtown and the south Highway 25 corridor, as the primary commercial districts of the community. As a result, limited convenience commercial is the most appropriate commercial lend use of any areas outside of the prtmary districts. The uses in the B-2 District should compete only mildly with the primary districts, while providing an Important convenience outlet for local short - trip business. The B-3 District opens the area uses to businesses which are not neoessartly convenience related, and as a result, compete more directly with the primary commercial clistricts. Although on a limited scale, " uses would not Ikey create negaWe Impacts, the B-2 District is better suited to the intent of the Comprehensive Plaut for this area Map 1 - Draft Zoning Map Amendment for the B -3A Dh&tct Map 2 - Draft Zoning Map Amendment for the B-2 District Map 3 - Draft Zoning Map Amendment far the B-3 District /L ;M- I 1 et Mep 1 so -3p% e, c'W-01-19i0 15:23 t7-tkw .._ ... ■ INA Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. I C COMMUNITY PLANNING -DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH PLANNING REPORT TO: Monticello Mayor and City Council Monticello Planning Commission O FROM: Bob Kinmis/Stephen Grittman oe J` y� 1 August 1996 bf IDATE: ; �.Q y f�p RE: Monticello - Express Lube FILE NO: 191.07-96.03 0. Anticipating a rezoning of their 37,570 square foot property from a PZM, Performance Zoned Mixed to either a B-3, Highway Business or B -3A, Neighborhood Automotive Related Use District, Investors Together, Inc, have requested a conditional use permit to establish an 'Express Lube and Detail Cleaning Center upon a 37,560 square foot site located ncrth of County Road 75 and west of County Road 116. Both tho 8-3 and B3A Districts IlLt automobile maintenance facilities as a conditional use. Previously, the City had turned down a request by the applicant to add automobile maintenance facilities as a conditional use in the PZM District. Specifically, the applicants request calls for the construction of a 2,600 squaro foot Express Lube/Detall Cleaning Center. Such construction will constitute a westerly expansion of a car wash facility which currently exists on the property. The applicant's previous application identified Cleaning center =Yiponent as a future phase of the project Conditional Use Permit As noted previously, the applicants have requested a cw4itional use permit In anticipation of a B3 ar B -3A zoning designation being applied to the property. Tho purpose, of tho rooulrod conditional use permit process is to enable the City Council to assign dimonsions to a proposed use or conditions surrounding it after consideration ^ o I` 5775 Wayzata Blvd, • Suite 555 - St. Louts Park. MN 55416 - (612) 595 -9636 -Fax. 595-98:17 FIG -01-1=6 15:24 r*X o.. _vim ..oma ._ of adjacent uses and their functions and the special problems which the proposed use presents to provide the City of Monticello with a reasonable degree of discretion in determining the suitability of certain designated uses upon the general welfare, public health and safety. Procedurally, the Planning Commission and City Council must consider the possible adverse effects of the proposed conditional use. Its judgement shall the based upon but not limited to the following factors: I . Relationship to municipal Comprehensive Plan. 2 The geographical area involved. 3. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area In which It Is proposed. 4. The character of the surrounding area. S. The demonstrated need for such use. Neighborhood Character. As noted previously, the Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission and City Council to consider the character of the area in which the use has been proposed. The following is a listing of uses which Ile acgacent to the property In question Direction Use North Multiple Family Residential (Towmhorsnes) South County Road 7WRad Line east Commorc:W (Comvenlence Ston) West Single Forntly, Residential Of key Importance in determining the compatibility of the proposed use with the neighborhood will be compliance with applicable buffer yard requirements of Section 3- 3.G. Details relating to such buffer yard requirements are highlighted In the following section of this report. Provided applicable buffer yard requirements are satisfied It la believed the proposed use can compatibly exist upon the subject site. Scresntrail. rtdecaplWiluftsr Yard RegLgrwunte. Asa o w4 tlon crf CUP approval, a landscape plan should be submitted which Identifies the type, location and size of all proposed site plantings, as well as compliance with the eforementloned buffer yard requirements. According to the Ordinance, the following buffer yard roqulrorients aro applicable to the subject property. I O- 1-U-)1-11= 1-1•13 Direction North South East I` West Minimum Building Buffer Yard Width Number of Plants Per Setback 100 Feet of Property Lina' 30 feet 20 feet so NA NA NA None None None 40 feet 30 feet 120 Location of an opaque fence or earth berm at least five feet in height within buffer yard shall be considered credit toward plant unit requirement. The number of required plant units may be reduced by 50 percent. Lot Combinations As shown an E)Nbtt D, the proposed 'detail cleaning center• 19 to overlay two parcels of land. As a condition of CUP approval, such lots should be legally combined so as to avoid the possible sale of a portion of the subject site. Additionally, the City Engineer should provide comment In regard to any necessary easement vacations. Lot Area Requirement As shown below, all applicable 13.3 District lot area and width requirements have been satisfactorily met Required Proposed Lot.Ane 22.500 feer 37,560 feet - Lot Width 150 foot ± 200 feet" • Applicable to auto -repair - minor facilities Assumes lot combination 3 /K Setbacks. As shown below, the proposed 'Express Lube and Detail Cleaning Center, does not meet all applicable B-3 District setbacks. As a condition of CUP approval, the site plan should be revised such that new construction meets applicable structure setback requirements. Bu(Idrrtg HeighUBdkiling Materials. To determine compliance with City building height and building material requirements, building elevations (drawn to scale) should be submitted which idettify structure height and finish materials. Cott -Street Parking. Parking Supply. The Zoning Ordinance does not provide s specific off-street partdng standard for automobile maintenance facilities. As part of the attached amondmoM however, an off-street parWng requirement applicable to the proposed use has been included. Such standard is referenced In an American Planning Association (APA) document entitled 'Off -Street Perking Requirements for Oil Change Facilities'. As calculated below, and assuming fMe service bays, the proposed automobile maintenance facility is required to provide twelve off-streat perking stalls. Spaces UW Ratio $mmlrad Automobile Maintenance Two spaces plus 12 Fak;ility (five service bays) two cpacos per "Mcs bay According to the submitted alto plan. a total of seven off-streM parking stats have boon proposed. As a condition of CUP approval, the site plan should be revised to satisfy off-street parting requirements. 4 75 Required Proposed Front Yard 30 feet 89 feet Side Yard - East 10 feet 6 feet - Side Yard. West 40 feet' 23 feet Rear Yard 30 feet• 33 feel ' Buffer Yard Setback Requirement " Legal nonconformity As a condition of CUP approval, the site plan should be revised such that new construction meets applicable structure setback requirements. Bu(Idrrtg HeighUBdkiling Materials. To determine compliance with City building height and building material requirements, building elevations (drawn to scale) should be submitted which idettify structure height and finish materials. Cott -Street Parking. Parking Supply. The Zoning Ordinance does not provide s specific off-street partdng standard for automobile maintenance facilities. As part of the attached amondmoM however, an off-street parWng requirement applicable to the proposed use has been included. Such standard is referenced In an American Planning Association (APA) document entitled 'Off -Street Perking Requirements for Oil Change Facilities'. As calculated below, and assuming fMe service bays, the proposed automobile maintenance facility is required to provide twelve off-streat perking stalls. Spaces UW Ratio $mmlrad Automobile Maintenance Two spaces plus 12 Fak;ility (five service bays) two cpacos per "Mcs bay According to the submitted alto plan. a total of seven off-streM parking stats have boon proposed. As a condition of CUP approval, the site plan should be revised to satisfy off-street parting requirements. 4 75 Dimensional Requirements. All proposed parking stalls and drive aisles have been found to meet or exceed minimum Ordinance requirements. Handicap Stalls. In accordance with State American Disability Act requirements, one off-street handicap parking stall must be provided upon the site. Curbing. In accordance with Zoning Ordinance requirements, all off-street parking areas must be provided a six Inch non -surmountable concrete curb. Surfacing. In accordance with Ordinance requirements, the proposed off-street parking area is to be surfaced in a bituminous material. Curb Cut. In what Is considered a positive site design feature, a single 24 foot wide curb from County Road 75 has been proposed. An existing curb cut along the site's eastern boundary is to be omitted. As a condition of CUP approval, such county road access must be subject to approval by the Wright County Highway Department and City Engineer. Loading. The Zoning Ordinance does not provide a specific off -West loading requirement for uses such as that being proposed. As a condition of CUP approval, however, a specific off-street loading space should be designated upon the submitted site plan. Lighting. It has not been Indicated whether any exterior lighting Is to be provided on site. Any lighting used to illuminate aft -street panting or outdoor storage areas must be hooded and directed to deflect light away from adjacent properties and public rights-of-way. Signage. As a condition of CUP approval, all applicable City sign requirements must be satisfied. Grading and Drainago. As a condition of CUP approval, a grading and drainage plan must be submitted. Such plan will be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Nolso. Intermittent sounds produoad by automobile maintenance facilities should not be audible to adjoining residential properties. As a condition of CUP approval, the eppllcant should provido Information regarding proposed noise mitigation efforts. Trash. The site plan does not Indicate whether trash is to be stored outdoors. If a trash receptacle is to be stored outside tho principal structure, It must be screened from view of neighboring properties. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS The applicant has submitted plans to construct a 2,600 square foot automobile maintenance facility. 1. Conditional Use Permit Approval (With Conditions) This alternative would allow the establishment of an automobile maintenarrce facility upon the subject property, provided several conditions are impdsed to insure use compatibility and proper site functioning. Findings: 1. The proposed project is consistent with the spirit and intent of the Monticello Comprehensive Phan goals and policies and in keeping with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. The proposed project is consistent with the purpose of the performance standards of the Zcning Ordinance. 3. The proposed project will not have any adverse Impacts, as outlined In the conditional use permit section of the Zoning Ordinance. 4. The proposed proud shall meet minimum screening and landscaping requirements as outlined herein. 5. The proposed project shall provide adequate parking and loading as outlined herein. 6. The proposed project shall rat impose any undue burden upon public facilities and servicos. 7. Tho proposed project is designed In such a manner to form a deaimble and unified onvironmem within Its boundaries which will not be detrimental to Allure land uses In surrounding areas. Architecture and site treatments shall be compatible with adjacent structures and site plans and shall respect the privacy of neighboring businesses. 6 nW-J1-1—. .Z' c� •mti --- --- -' -- Conditions: 1. The City approve a rezoning of the property to accommodate the proposed use (8-3 or B -3A District designation). 2. The two lots which underlie the subject property are legally combined 3. The City Engineer provide comment and recommendation In regard to the need for easement vacation. 4. The site plan is revised to meet applicable setback requirements (buffer yard). 5. ' Use of the facility is limited to automobileflight truck oil changes. 6. The applicant demonstrate compliance with City building height and building material requirements through the submission of building elevations. 7. The site plan Is revised to illustrate a total of 12 off-street parking stabs. ta. One handicap parking stall is provided In accordance with the State American Disability Act requirements. 9. All off-street perking areas are provided a six Inch non -surmountable concrete curb. 10. The proposed 35 foot curb std is subject to approval by the Wright County Highway Department and City Engineer. 11. The site plan is modified to Illustrate an off-street loading space. 12. A landscape plan Is submitted and approved which Identifies the type, location, and sizo of all site plantings. Such pian shall also demonstrate compliance with applicable buffer yard requirements. 13. All lighting used to Illuminate off-street parking be hooded end ditdod to deflect light away from adjacent properties and public rights-of-way. 14. All City sign requirements aro satisfactorily met. 15. A grading and drainage plan Is submitted subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 16. Intermittent sounds produced by the oil change operations are not audible to adjacent residontlol properties. 14 17. All exterior trash handling facilities are screened from view of adjacent properties and public rights-of-way. 18. Developer agrees that it will be responsible for any reconstruction or rastoraUan in the event that the City needs to do drainage and utility work in the City's easement 2 Conditional Use Permit Denial A second alternative available to the City would be to deny the requested conditional use perrnit If the City chooses to deny the conditional use permit, it should be based upon the following findings: 1. The proposed use Is not consistent with the spirit and intent of the Monticello Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. 2. The proposed use is likely to have an adverse impact upon wrramcling properties. C, STAFF RECOMMENDATION Provided the City finds the proposed use of the property to be appropriate (and approves the necessary rezoning), staff reeomends approval of the requested conditional use permit subject to the fulfillment of the 18 conditions listed above. Attached for reference: Exhibit A - Site Location Exhibit 8 - Detailed Site Location Exhibit C - Previous Site Plan Exhibit D - Revised Site Plan 8 y�. rD a'�'u tr r !AC go 4-41 CO LOS 13, sn SAM 1 1 I -11 pul'ta OVDUS SP SITE . f A % Y :+ j-5 c- All, EXHIBIT 8 • DETAILED SITE LOCATION GY Z- cz, CITY of MONTICELLO wit1cmr comm wmxitsau STE C j CHAPTER 12 "B-2" LIMITED BUSINESS DISTRICT SECTION: 12-1: Purpose 12-2: Permitted Uses 12-3: Permitted Accessory Uses 12-4: Conditional Uses 12-1: PURPOSE: The purpose of the B-2, limited business, district is to provide for low intensity retail or service outlets which deal directly with the customer for whom the goods or services are furnished. The uses allowed in this district are to provide goods and services on a limited community market scale and located in areas which are well served by collector or arterial street facilities at the edge of residential districts. 12-2: PERMITTED USES: The following are permitted uses in a B-2 district: [A] All permitted uses as allowed in the B-1, neighborhood business, district. (B] Art and school supplies. [C] Bakery goods and baking of goods for retail sales on the premises. (D) Bank, savings and loan, savings credit unions, and other financial institutions. (E] Bicycle sales and repair. (F) Candy, ice cream, popcorn, nuts, frozen desserts, and soft drinks. (G] Camera and photograhic supplies. (H) Commercial (leased) and professional offices. (I) Delicatessen. (J] Dry cleaning pickup and laundry pickup stations, including incidental repair and assembly but not including processing. (K) Drug store. (L) Florist shop. ^ bg MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 12/1 [M] Frozen food store but not including a locker plant. [N] Gift or novelty store. [0] Grocery, fruit, or vegetable store but not including sales from moveable motorized vehicle. (P) Grocery, supermarket. [41 Hardware. [R) Hobby store, including handicraft classes but not to exceed fifteen (15) students. [S] Ice sales with storage not to exceed five (5) tons. [T] Insurance sales. [U] Locksmith. (V) Meat market but not including processing for a locker plant. [W] Medical and dental offices and clinics. [XJ Paint and wallpaper sales. i [Y] Plumbing, television, radio, electrical sales, and such repair as are accessory use to retail establishment permitted within this district. (Z) Public utility collection offices. [AA] Public garage. [BB] Real estate sales. (CC) Shoe repair. (DD) Glass sales and service. [EE) Professional and commercial offices. (FF) Jewelry store/watch repair. [GG) Gas station/convenience store. (02/10/92, 1220) 12-3: PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES: The following are permitted accessory uses in a B-2 district: (A) All pormittod accessory uses as allowed in a B-2 district. w MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE a/2 12-4: CONDITIONAL USES: The following are conditional uses in a B-2 district: (Requires a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated by Chapter 22 of this ordinance.) (A) Multiple family buildings provided that: 1. Development is compatible with existing and planned use of the area and conflicts are not created between commercial and residential use and activities. 2. The lot, setback, and building requirements outlined in Chapter 3, Sections 2, 3, and 4, of this ordinance are complied with. 3. At least five hundred (500) square feet of useable open space as defined in Chapter 2, Section 2, of this ordinance is provided for each dwelling unit. 4. Adequate off-street parking and off-street loading is provided in compliance with Chapter 3, Sections 5 and 6. 5. The development is adequately served by a collector or arterial street. 6. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. ]B] Governmental and public utility buildings and structures necessary for the health, safety, and general welfare of the community provided that: 1. Conformity with the surrounding neighborhood is maintained and required setbacks and side yard requirements are met. 2. Adequate screening from neighboring uses and landscaping is provided in accordance with Chapter 3, Section 2, of this ordinance. 3. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. (C] Commercial planned unit development as regulated by Chapter 20 of this ordinance. 10 MONTICELW ZONING ORDINANCE 12/3 CHAPMR 13 "B-3" HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT SECTION: 13-1: Purpose 13-2: Permitted Uses 13-3: Permitted Accessory Uses 13-4: Conditional Uses 13-1: PURPOSE: The purpose of the "B-3," highway business, district is to provide for and limit the establishment of motor vehicle oriented or dependent commercial and service activities. 13-2: PERMITTED USES: The following are permitted uses in a "B-3" district: [A] All permitted uses as allowed in a B-1 and B-2 district. (B] Auto accessory store. (C] Commercial recreational uses. (D] Motels, motor motels, and hotels provided that the lot area contains not less than five hundred (400) square feet of lot area per unit. (E] Restaurants, cafes, tea rooms, taverns, and off -sale liquor, provided that the use is not located within 300 ft of a residential zone. (09/26/94, t258) [F] Private clubs or lodges serving food and beverages with use being restricted to members and their guests. Adequate dining room, kitchen, and bar space must be provided according to standards imposed upon similar unrestricted customer operations. The serving of alcoholic beverages to members and their guests shall be allowed, providing that such service is in compliance with applicable federal, state, and municipal regulations. Offices of such use shall be limited to no more than twenty (20) percent of the gross floor area of the building. (G] Taxi terminale, stand, and offices. (H] Small printing or publishing business employing six (6) or lees persons . 13-3: PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES s The following are permitted accessory uses in a "B-3" district: 9, KONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 13/1 0 [AJ All permitted accessory uses as allowed in a "B-2," limited business, district. [BJ Adult Use/Accessory (01/13/92,6217) 13.4: CONDITIONAL USES: The following are conditional uses in a "B-3" district: (Requires a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated by Chapter 22 of this ordinance.) SU1VL1►RARY LISTING: [A] Drive-in and convenience food establishments. [B] Carwashes (drive through, mechanical, and self-service). [C] Motor fuel station, motor fuel station/convenience store, auto repair - minor, and fire and battery stores and service. [D) New and used automobileAight truck sales and display. [E] Open and outdoor storage as a principal or accessory use. [F] Open or outdoor service, sale, and rental as a principal or accessory use and including sales in or from motorized vehicles, trailers, or wagons. [G] Accessory, enclosed retail, rental, or service activity other than that allowed as a permitted use or conditional use within this section. [H] Shopping Center. [I] Animal Pet Clinics. [J] Pet Hospitals. [K] Commercial storage contained entirely with a building. [L] Commercial planned unit development as regulated by Chapter 20 of this ordinance. [M] Consignment auction sales and/or auction sales. [N] Outdoor go-kart tracks. [0] Day-care centers. [P] Auto body shop repair. [Q] Restaurants, cafes, tea rooms, taverns, and off sale liquor located within 300 fl of a residential zone. 1FF MARQUETTE BANK 295,4277 Page 2 jou say auy-uy tri iJ:o� IW.0 Nates from Tues. Aug. 6. Planning & Zoning Meeting. Citv Staff's Recommendation to the Board. 1. Dstay creation of the new D -JA district. • 8-3A further muddies the water with the existing (4) D Districts. K -3A in this area does not conform to the city's comprehensive plan. • Sets a precedence for future Auto Relatcd Requests 2. Rezone this area from P'ZM to 3-2. • B-2 allows all the same uses as a PZM, but more clearly defines what is and is not allowed. • Eliminate the ambiguity of the PZM. • Conforms with the surrounding zonings, and the city's comprehensive plan. 3. to effect; the above two actians would not allow the current Fast tube /Detail Center request, or any future auto seimaJmiumenance typo of facility in this area. This would then comply with the city's overall comprehensive plan. lieu(¢ otic A CA aut.r„�t a 1 07 Co- r ]� -7 To: JcITO'Neill From: Dan and Linda Miclkc Dale: Aug S. 19% RE: A. Creation of a new &3A (Neighborhood Automotive Related Use District) B. Rezoning of the PZM district located East of the municipal wore nater treatment plant and North of Co. Rd 75 to a B -3A or B-3. C. Granting a conditional use permit for a fast lube/detail anter in a new B -3A or B-3 district. Position: All three of the above requests should be denied for the following reasons: A. Ntajor decisions regarding traffic flow through the city on E. Broadway/Hwy. 75, and its impact on future roads. frontage rads, setbacks, etc. should be made first, before arty rezoning takes place. B. Authors of the proposed B -3A zone, by virtue of thew own description. (Neighborhood Automotive Related Use District) recognize this area as a acighborhooKIL and not a commercial district. C. Fan Lubes and their RB's. (related businesses) such as Exhaust Pro's. Midas Brakes. Tires Plus. etc.. are mot neighborhood businesses. They are commercial district businesses, and arc found in commercial districts in every other city. D. An ordinance allowing a Fast LubdM's in this area of the city seta a precedence and would likely lead to a full scale Auto Mall with no legal way to deny it. All the auto related franchises have waiting lobbies and attempt to operate on the same philosophy of -in and out". or -whale you watt' service. E. Rezoning to B -JA or BJ, would lead to the development of two commercial business districts In town. East side vs. DowmmvMilwy. 25 corridor. Monticello businesses have struggled with the business district transition from Downtow-n to Hwy. 25 corridor, why start the process all over again?? F. Rezoning of this area to &3A or B-3 wrnrld increase commercial traffic on Broadway. (Trucks etc.) G. Creates a business environment contradictory to the goals of the city's comprehensive plan, and its unbiased planners. H. This re quest benefits a special Interco group, and is ag in the best interest of the city's long tam goals and planned developroent. This property can be developed proretably within the current zoning guidelines. [. The current PZM zoning is very appropriate for the area, allowing day care, office buildings, dental clinic& ctc. &2 would remove the ambiguity of a PZM. Beth PZM and B-2 zones conform to the city's comprehensive plan. and existing zones around this site. J. How many B zone categories does the city want? We currently have i, (B I. B2. B3 and 131). New Request o B -3A - Neighborhood Auto Related District What's Next o 8-38 - Neighborhood Food Related Disuict711? B -3C - Neighborhood Entertainment Related Districtl771 I ask the city ofieiab and governing bodice to stand by their comprehensive plan. Do not allow fragmentation of the commercial business district, and send a clear message that in Monticello you reed to plan your land purchases and business ideas around the comprehensive plan and the coning requirements. The city has o good overall plan. Get the E. Broadway/Huy. 75, and 25 South traffic problems solved Our city officials and governing bodies reed strong bade, and tough hides to resist special interests, and then Monticello has the potential to be a model city... serving all its constituents well. $CyW"0—Alus- 9i Vag asst" inose. «lass to 8-2 vs wee at aU - Da oa aslarssd 7Xsstlse!!s's e°awmew(ae vc�wew liuesiee - �iac 21?'ul�fi 1�9 Fast Lubes and their RB's, (related businesses), such as Exhaust Pro's, Midas Brakes, Tires Plus, etc. with their "in and out"/"while you wait" ohilosonhies. are Not Neighborhood Businesses. • A convenience store with gas and a car wash is s neighborhood business. Most people get gas, pick up a loaf of bread, grab a newspaper, or wash thew car weekly. • Fast Lubes/RB's are = neighborhood businesses. People do not change their oil, replace a belt, have their radiator flushed, replace exhaust, brakes, or tires weekly. • To most people, gas is gas, bread is bread, a touch free car wash is a touch free car wash, and they will not drive across town for this. They will frequent the most convenient locations. Convenience stores are appropriate for neighborhood areas. • When it comes to automobile maintenance or service, which is what a fast lube/RB is, it is a different issue. These are destination businesses. Because these services are not required weekly, people will drive across town, right past the most convenient fast IubdRB, to have their vehicle serviced at a business where they feel the most confident in the service rendered. • Fast Lubes/RB's cannot survive on neighborhood business alone, they must pull in from large areas, resulting in increased traffic in the neighborhood. • Across the state, convenience stores with gas and ear wash are frequently found on the fringes of neighborhood developments, but fast lubevRB's are not allowed. Fast lubes/RB's and their "in and out"P'while you wait" philosophies, are designated to commercial areas. Why should Monticello develop differently?". Fast Lithe Industry St. Cloud 87,913 people 3 fast lubes Mankato 48,177 people 2 fast lubes Monticello 14,010 people 1 under construction e proposed • From a business perspective it is questionable whether Monticello is big ennugh to suppon I, let done 2 fast lubes. There is a reason why one of the major fast lube chains is not already here. • The Point : If two were to exist in Monticello, both would be fared to offer additional services to try to cash flow. =::k How is the city going to monitor these services and assure their confor nfity with the city's zoning ordinances?M 07s s NEcJ SUPPoK7'lNG DX}-rH Council Agenda - 5/13/96 The entire staff report for items 7, 8, and 9 have been provided by Northwest Associated Consultants as attached. Under item #7 above, the Planning Commission recommended approval as noted under Decision 1 in the following report, which can be found on page 8. Under item #8 above (the conditional use request), the Planning Commission recommended approval as noted under Decision 2 in the following report, which can be found on page 9. Under item #9 above, the Planning Commission recommended denial as noted under Decision 3 found on page 11. MY -W-19% 0733 RC N 612 5% 9837 P.01 -112N NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CCNSULTANTS C SNC 8 77S WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE SS S ST.LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 5841 45 TRANSMITTAL PHONE 16 1 2,505-08345 D ATE : 8 May 1996 NUMBER OF PAGES TO: JeffO'Neill INCLUDING COVER: 12 FROM: Nine Nielsen OUANTITY: MATERIAL/DESCRIPTION: DATED: 1 PlaMng Report - Expose Lube (Revised) 518/96 VIA: REMARKS: D¢60vca. D C PRO J E CT: Monllcallo - E*me Lube JOB NUMBER: 191.07-w.w �� Jeff, u Steve thoL4d this was on his computer but it was On our mrft 'Ax DX corrlp". so I am faking this revised report to you Instead of Steve dropping off a diskette to you this morning, Call U any quosUms. PICK u• D¢60vca. D C PRO J E CT: Monllcallo - E*me Lube JOB NUMBER: 191.07-w.w �� MAY -M-1996 0734 NRC 612 595 9937 P.02i12 ' rN Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. C COMMUNITY PLANNING - DEBIGN - MARKET RESEARCH PLANNING REPORT TO: Monticello Mayor and City Council Monticello Planning Commission FROM: Bob IOrmls/Stepthen Grittman DATE: 8 May 1996 RE: Monticello - Express lube - Zoning Ordinance Amendrnert CUP FILE NO: 191.07 - 96.03 BACKGROUND Investors Together Inc has submitted plans to construct a 1,352 square foot 'Express Lube' facility upon a 15,800 square foot parcel of land located north of County Road 75 and west of County Road 118. In the long term, the applicant plans to construct a ± 1.170 square foot building addition which would accommodate minor automobile repair activities. The subject property is zoned PZM, Performance Zone Mixed. To accommodate the applicant's immediate and long range development plan, the following approvals have been requested: 1. Zoning Ordinance amendment to establish 'automoblle malntenance facllitlee' as conditional uses In the PZM Zoning District. 2. Zoning Ordinance amandmont to establish 'minor automobile repale as a conditional use In the PZM Zoning District. 3. Conditional use pormlt to allow an automobile maintenance within a P2 M Zoning District 7L,L 5775 Wayzata Blvd. - Suite 555 - Sl. Louis Park, MN 55416 - (612) 595 -9636 -Fax. 595-9837 Attached for reference: Exhibit A - Site Location Exhibit B - Detailed SIte Location Exhibit C - Draft Zoning Ordinance Amendment Exhibit D - Site Plan ISSUES ANALYSIS P2V DiOdet Amendments Automobile Maintenance FacllWes. To acco nrnodate the proposed 'Express Lube' facility an amendment to the PZM District provisions is necessary. Spedfically, the establishment of'Womobi1e mainterkv= teoilltles' as a conditional use In the district hes been proposed. In consideration of such amendment, the City should make a determination as to the acceptability of such use within the PZM District According to the Ordinance, the purpose of the PZM District Is to provide a land use transitlon between high density residential land uses, as well as the Intermixing of each such land use. In some respells, an automobile mahUrarwe fedlity is oonsidered comparable in intensity to several existing conditional uses in the PZM District, including ear washes, dry cleaning and retail commercial activities (a car wash facility currently exists to the east of the sub)ect property). Alternatively, it is debatablo whottw a Gear distinction exists be%veen an'sutomobile maintenance facility' and 'minor automobile repair facillty While justification for approval of the requested amendment may exist, a decision regarding the appropriateness of such amendment is considered a policy matter to be determined by City officials. Attached as Exhibit C Is a draft Zoning Ordinance amendment which would establish automobile maintenance facilities as conditional uses in the MA, Perforrnaneo Zorxing Wood District. Such amendment Induces various conddicns intended to mitigate potential adverse impacts. In review of the draft amendment, it should be noted that 'automobile msintenanos facilities' are referenced as Section 10-8.K I. While lass than Ideal, such formatting rosponds to an existing fdma" orror in ft P2WI section and Is Intended to expedite the amendment process. Under the currant Ordinance format, the following are listed as conditional uses In the PZM District: 1MP4 N. Apartment Density Bonus 0. Findings of Fact P. Standards 0. Project Review Process Rather than reformat extensive volumes of Ordinance material at this time, a simple reference to automobile maintenance facilities as item K 1 under PZM conditional uses is considered appropriate. Minor Automobile Repair. In the long term, the applicant has expressed a desire to provide minor automobile repair activities through a future building expansion. To accommodate such activities, an amendment to the PZM District provisions has been requested which would establish such activities as conditional uses. The Zoning Ordinance defines minor automobile repair as: [AO] AUTOMOBILE REPAIR - MINOR: Minor repairs, incidental body and fender work, painting and upholstering, replacement of parts and motor services to passenger automobiles, and trucks not exceeding nine thousand (9,000) pounds gross weight, but not Including any operation specified under 'automobile repair - major.' This business performs mechanical and electrical repairs to autos, light trucks, and equipment 9,000 pounds GVW and less. Allowed: Tune ups and adjustrnents, replacement of parts (excluding body and frame), rebuilding of parts or components when installation Is avallable, wheel alignment and balancing, tire repair, radiator repair, washing, cleaning, and polishing. Currently, minor automobile repair facilities ere listed as conditional uses in the B-3, Highway Commercial; B-4, Regional Business; 1-1, Light Industrial; and 1-4, Heavy Industrial Districts. Considering the innate characteristics of minor automobile repair facilities (i.e., noise, outdoor storage, etc.), it Is tho opinion of our office that such use does not satisfy the purpose of the PZM District and is more appropriately allowed In higher Intensity districts. An ultimate decision regarding the acceptability of such activity wfthln tho PZM District is, however, considered a policy matter to be determined by City officials. Should the City feel that minor automobile repair Is an acceptable use of the property, we would suggest rezoning the property rather than pursuo a PZM District amardment. It is tho opinion of staff that altomativo zoning districts oxist which aro better suited (and specifically intended) to accommodate uses of the Intensity of minor automobile repair facilities. Conditional Use Permit CUP Review Criteria As mentioned previously, an amendment to PZM District requirements is necessary to accommodate the immediate development pians of the applicant. in this regard, a draft Zoning Ordinance amendment has been prepared which would establish 'automobile mabttenarroe fatalities' as conditional uses In the PZM District. Per the attached ordinance amendment (Exhibit C), a 'automobile maintenance fadlity' is defined as: Autanobile Maintenance Facility. A business which provides short term, while you wait, automobile maintenance service to automobiles and light truths of rine thousand (9,000) GVW or less. Service acxlvltles Include oil changing, lubrication, tire rotation and the like, but in no case may include repair activities. Automobile mairtanancefedlities shall be distinguished from minor automobile repair facilities in that "while you waft service may be provided and vehicular storage shall be prohibited. The purpose of the required conditional use permit process Is to enable the City Council to assign dimensions to a proposed use or conditions surrounding it after consideration of adjacent uses end their functions and the special problems which the proposed use presents to provide the City of Monticello with a reasonable degree of dlsmdcn in determining the suitability of certain designated uses upon the general welfare, public health and safety. Procedurally, the Planning Commission and City Council must consider the possible adverse effects of the proposed conditional use. Its judgement shall be based upon but not limited to the following factors: Relationship to munidpal Comprehensive Plan. The geographical arcs Involved. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area In whish It is proposed. The character of the surrounding area. The demonstrated road for such use. Neighborhood Character. As noted previously, the Zoning Ordinance directs the Nanning Commisslon and City Council to consider the character d Na area in which the use has been proposed. The following Is a listing of uses which Ile adjacent to the property In question: '7p Mev -99-1995 97:35 Direction Use ` I North WhAple Family Residential (ToMnhomes) South County Road 75ftil Une East Commercial (Car Wash) West Single Family Resldentlal Of key Importance in determining the compatibility of the proposed use with the neighborhood will be compliance with applicable buffer yard requirements of Section 3- 3.G. Details relating to such butler yard requirements are highlighted In the following section of this report. Provided applicable buffer yard requirements are satisfied it is believed the proposed use can compatibly eldst upon the subject site. ScreeninglLandscapingiffluffer Yard RequirelnenUL Asa condition of CUP approval, a landscape plan should be submitted which Identifies the type, location and size of all proposed site plantings, as well as compliance with the aforementioned buffer yard requirements. According to the Ordinance, the following buffer yard requirements are applicable to the subject property. Direction Mlnlmum Building Buffer Yard Width Number of Plmfts Per Setback 100 Foot of Property Une• North 30 feet 20 feet so South NA NA NA East None None Now West 40 fest 30 feet 120 • Location of an opaque fence or earth berm at least five feel In height within buffer yard shall be considered credit toward plant unit requirement The number of required plant units may be reduced by 50 percent. Lot Area Rnquilmnent There are no specific lot area or width requirernants Imposed In the PZM District 5 F? MAY -08-1996 07:35 Setbacks. As shown below, the proposed 'Express Lube facility does not most all applicable PZM District (B-3 District setbacks applicable). Required Propomw Front Yard 30 feet 69 feet Side Yard - East 10 feet 45 feet Side Yard - West 40 feet' 1 e feel Rear Yard 30 feet' 32 feet Buffer Yard Setbark Requlroment As a condition of CUP approval, the site plan should be revised to meet applicable structure setback requirements. 1211490M Helght(BuBding MaleAals. To determine compliance with City building height and building material requirements, building elevations (drawn to scale) should be submitted which identify structure height and finish rnaterials. CiffShvet Packing. Parking Supply. The Zoning Ordinance does not provide a specific off-street parking standard for automobile maintenance facilities. As part of the attached amendment however, an offveet parking requirement applicable to the proposed use has beer included. Such standard is referenced In an American Planning Association (APA) document entitled 'Off -Street Parking Requirements for Oil Change Factllbes'. As calculated below, and assuming two service bays, the proposed automobile maintenance facility is required to provide six off-strest parking stalls. Spaces U6A Ratio geoulred Automobile Maintenance Two spaces plus 6 Facility (two servico bays) two 3paces per awlco bay According to the submitted site plan, a total of four off-street perking dolls have been proposed. As a condition of CUP approval, the she plan amid be revised to provide six off-aftet spaces. Dimensional Roquirsrnents. All proposed parking dolls and drive slsles have been found to most or exceed minimum Ordinance requirements. 6 -7 GLG- II Handicap Stalls. In accordance with State American Disability Act requirements, one off-street handicap parking stall must be provided upon the site. Curbing. In accordance with Zoning Ordinance requirements, all oft -street parking areas must be provided a six Inch non -surmountable concrete curb. Surfacing. In accordance with Ordinance requirements, the proposed off-street parking area is to be surfaced in a bituminous material. Curb Cut in what Is considered a positive site design feature, a shared 35 foot wide curb from County Road 75 has been proposed. As a condition of CUP approval, such curb cut access must be subject to approval by the Wright County Highway Department and City Engineer. Loading. The Zoning Ordinance does not provide a specific off-street loading requirement for uses such as that being proposed. As a condition of CUP approval, however, a specific off-street loading space should be designated upon the submitted site plan. Ughtfng. it has not been indicated whether any exterior lighting is to be provided on site. Any lighting used to Illuminate off-street parking or outdoor storage areas must be hooded and directed to deflect light away from adjacent properties and public rights-of-way. Signage. As a condition of CUP approval, all applicable City sign requirements must be satisfied. Grading and Drainage. As a condition of CUP approval, a grading and drainage plan must be submitted Such plan will be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Noise. PZM District provisions (proposed) state that Intermittent sounds produced by automobile maintenance facilities must not be audible to users of e4olning PZM or residential properties. The applicant will be required to provide informaUon regarding proposed noiso mitigation efforts. Trash. The site plan does not indicate whether trash is to be stored outdoors. H a trash reccptarlo Is to be stored outside the principal structure, It must be screened from view of neighboring properties. Future Building Addition. The submitted site plan conceptually illuWataa a future t 1,200 square foot structure addition which would connoct to the adjacent easterly car wash. It is the desire of the applicant to use such addition for'minor automobile repair, activities. Consideration of such addition relates directly to a decision regarding the -IAK proposed Ordinance amendment to establish minor automobile repair facilities as conditional uses within the PZM District While staff holds some concern in regard to the in� of such a use in the PZM District, an ultimate decision regarding land use appropriateness Is considered a policy matter to be determined by the City. CITY ACTION The applicant has submitted plans to construct a 1,352 square foot automobile maintenance faciUty with long range plans to construct a ± 1,200 square foot building addition In which 'minor automobile repair' activities would be conducted. DECISION ONE - PZ1M ZONING DISTRICT AMENDMENT - AUTOMOBILE MAINTENANCE FACILITIES D Altemadve A - Amendmerrt Approval _ I 1 AC S i, c T Q t c eJ. Is c Approval of the requested amendment would establish automobile maintenance facilities as conditional uses in the PZM Diatrict Provided various conditions are Implemented, it is the opinion of our office that such use can compatibly exist in the PZM District It should be rioted, however, that some question does mist In regard to a dear distinction between 'automobile maintenance facilities' aid r automobile repaif. Should the City choose to approve the requested amendment, such edion should be based on the following findings: The proposed amendment and resulting use Is consistent with the spirit and intent of the Monticello Comprehensive Plan and goals and policies. 2. The proposed amendment and resulting use is consistent with the general Intent of the zoning district purpose of the PZM District. Aitemativo B - Arrtandmant Denial A second alternative available to the City would be to deny the requested amendment to conditionally allow automobile nwlntonence facilities within P2M Districts. Such denial would also have the ahRed of dwiying the simultaneous CUP request as tho meehwdsm to receive such CUP would not exist. X55 Should the City deny the requested amendment, it should be based upon the following findings: 1. The proposed amendment and resulting use is not consistent with the spirit and Intent of the Monticello Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. 2. The proposed amendment and resulting use is likely to have an adverse impact upon surrounding properties. 3. The proposed use is riot consistent with the purpose of the PZM District. DECISION TWO - CONDMONAL USE PERMIT FOR AUTOMOBILE MAINTENANCE FACILITY Alternative A - Condltlonal Use Perrrdt Approval (With Conditions) This attemetive would allow the establishment of an automobile maintenance facility upon the subject property, provided several conditions are imposed to insure use compatibility and proper site functioning. Should the City approve the requested amendment to allow such uses in the PZM District we would recorronend approval of the requested conditional use permit be approved based upon the following findings and conditions: Findings: 1. The proposed project is consistent with the spirit and Intent of the Monticello Comprehensive Plan goals and policies and in keeping with the Intent of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. The proposed project is cona4tent with the purpose of the performance standards of the Zoning Ordinaneo. 3. The proposed project will not have any adverse Impacts, as outlined in the conditional use permit seWon of the Zoning Ordinance. 4. The proposed project shall meet mhlmt m sceening and landscaping requirements as outlined herein. S. The proposed project shall provide adequate parking and loading as outlined herein. 6. The proposed project shell not ampose any undue burden upon public facilities and services. 9 1 MY -W-19% 07:36 NX 612 595 9W? F. 11I1[ 7. The proposed project is designed in such a manner to form a desirable and unified environment within its boundaries which will not be detrimental to future land uses in surrounding areas. Architecture and site treatments shall be compatible with adjacent structures and site plans and shall respect the privacy of neighboring businesses. Conditlons: 1. The City approve the requested PZM amendment to accommodate automobile maintenance facilities. 2. The site plan is revised to meet applicable setback requirements (buffer yard). 3. Use of the facility Is limited to Womobileflight truck oil changes. 4. The applicant demonstrate compliance with City building height and building material requirements through the submission of building elevations. 5. The site plan is revised to Illustrate a total of six off-street parking stalls. 6. One handicap parking stall Is provided in accordance with the State American Disability Act requirements. , 7. al off-street parking areas are provided a six Inch raskutnountable concrete curb. 8. The proposed 35 foot curb cut is subject to approval by the WHOM County Highway Department and City Engineer. 9. The site plan is modified to illustrate an off-street loading spare. 10. A landscape plan Is submitted and approved wttict identifies the type, location, and size of all site plantings. Such plan shall also demonstrato compliance with applicable buffer yard requirements. 11. All lighting used to illuminate ofttreet perking be hooded and directed to deflect light away from adjacent properties and public right -way. 12. All City sign requirements aro a lisfectorily met. 13. A grading end dratrmge plan Is submitted subjoet to review end approval by the City Engineer. 10 Lt 612 595 9837 P. 12/12 14. Intermittent sounds produced by the oil change operations are not audible to adjacent properties. 15. All exterior trash handling facilities are screened from view of adjacent properties and public rights-of-way. 16. Developer agrees that it will be responsible for any reconstruction or restoration in the event that the City needs to do drainage and utility work in the City s easement Alternative 0 - Conditional Use Pemdt Denial A seed aRenative available to the City would be to deny the requested conditional use permit. if the City chooses to deny the conditional use permit, it should be based upon the following findings: 1. The proposed use is not consistent with the spirit and intent of the Monticello Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. 2. The proposed use is likely to have an adverse impact upon surrounding properties. DECISION THREE - PZM ZONING DISTRICT AMENDMENT - MINOR AUTOMOBILE REPAIR Alternative A - Amendment Approval Approval of this request would establish minor automobile repair activities within the PZM Zoning District as a conditional use. It is the opinion of our office that such use lies in conflict with the purpose of the PZM District and is more appropriately provided for in business and industrial zoning designations. Should the City find that minor automobile uses are acceptable upon the subject property, we would suggest that the City consider a rezoning of the property rather than a PZM District amendment Altomadvo B - Amendment DonlallP1a A n , .,) C o AAn^ 1 1. s. v A second option available to the City is to deny the eetendment request If such action is taken, it should be basad on the sera findings of denial for Decision One. While denial of this request will establish minor automobile repair facilities as inappropriate within the PZM District, such decision is considered Independent of the Immediate'Exprosa Luba' proposal/ development plan (amendment and CUP). pc JofT O'Neill TOTAL P.12 Is ITE SITE ;.. = ; F.j., ••::. .fit" \ \ \tel ``•' �:`: ', ii.j:i �7i rt,lyv• �'!;.. .W1 .:. �.�'1 �' .:.`fit � •I:� �•. t. �,•' 1., ��. r. r.u,.,•" �.:1 � .t�'•�,:• •tom •. ~• '• --- .. ._. .•, . .`. k- IYYYj"'= i icy. •--;'•'"�j�f�''t ,1 r, •� R.%J, • • •1.IT�`�•.i•r_—_,--Mtv,a. `ra__' j,�, i ' .a � fit';. •�u.r,. EIIMIBIT B • DETAILED SITE LOCATION -7xx DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 OF THE MONTICELLO CITY CODE (THE ZONING ORDINANCE) TO ACCOMMODATE AUTOMOBILE MAINTENANCE FACILITIES AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE PZM DISTRICT. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN: Section 1. Title 10, Section 202 of the Monticello City Code (Definitions) is hereby amended to add the following: AM(1) AUTOMOBILE MAINTENANCE FACILITY: A business which provides ' short tens, while you wait, automobile maintenance service to automobiles and light trucks of nine thousand (9,000) GVW or less. Service activities include oil changing, lubrication, fire rotation and the like but in no case may include repair activities. Automobile maintenance facilities shall be distinguished from minor automobile repair facilities in that only while you wait service may be provided and vehicular storage shall be prohibited. Section 2. Title 10, Section 3-5.1-1 of the Monticello City Code (Off -Street Parking Requirements) is amended to add the following: 28. Automobile Maintenance Facilities: Two (2) spaces plus two (2) spaces per service bay. Service bays or pumping areas shall not be considered off- street parking space. Scctlon 3. Title 10, Section 10.8 of the Monticello City Code (PZM Conditional Uses) is hereby amended to add the following: K.1 Automobile Maintenance Facilities provided that: The architectural appearance and functional plan of the building and site shall not be so dissimilar to the existing buildings or orea as to cause impairment In property values or constitute a blighting influence within a reasonable distance of the lot. EXHIBIT C - DRAFT ZONING OROINANCFLAMEMM--y 7YY 2. The use of the facility is limited to short term, while you wait automobile maintenance activities and not repair. 3. Buffer yard requirements of Chapter 3, Section 3.G of this Ordinance are satisfied. 4. Each light standard island and all islands in the parking lot shall be landscaped or covered. 5. Parking spaces shall be screened from view of abutting residbntial districts in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2[G] of this Ordinance. 6. The entire area other than occupied by the buildings or plantings shall be surfaced with material which will control dust and drainage which is subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 7. The entire area shall have a drainage system which is subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 8. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source is not visible from the public right-of-way or from an abutting residence and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [H] of this Ordinance. 9. Vehicular access points shall be limited, shall create a minimum of conflict with through traffic movement, end shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 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. 13. Automobile maintenance facility shall have direct access to major thoroughfare via driveway or frontage road. 14. Intermittent sounds produced by automobile maintenance facility shall not be audible to users of adjoining PZM or residential properties. 2 -7,z f-- Section 4. This Ordnance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and publication. ADOPTED by the Monticello City Council this day of 1996. ATTEST: By. Rick Wolfsteller, Administrator CITY OF MONTICELLO By. Brad Fyle, Mayor AYES: NAYS: f r7r7 e""I'll? D - Slre PLAN 7 I Council Minutes - 5/13/96 Assistant Administrator ONeill reported that Investors Together was requesting an ordinance amendment establishing an oil/lube facility as a conditional use in the PZM zone, a conditional use permit allowing operation of an oil/lube facility in a PZM zone, as well as an ordinance amendment establishing minor auto repair as a conditional use in the PZM zone. ONeill noted that a few years ago the Planning Commission approved allowing an oil/lube facility in the PLM zone; however, the request was withdrawn by the applicant and was never reviewed by the City Council. After reviewing the current request at their May 7 meeting, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the ordinance amendment allowing auto maintenance facilities as a conditional use in the PZM zone. Planner Steve Grittmnn of Northwest Associated Consultants noted that because the proposed oil/lube facility would be a "while-you•waie service, it could compatibly exist in the PLM district provided various conditions were implemented. In regard to the proposed ordinance amendment allowing minor auto repair in the PZM zone, Grittman suggested that Council rezone the property if they felt this would be an appropriate use of the site rather than pursue a PLM district amendment. Council noted their concern with amending the PZM district regulations, as any change would afi'ect all PZM zones in the city. They were also concerned that care may eventually be left overnight at the site. Ken Schwartz noted that the current car wash at the site has a bigger impact on the site than an oilAube facility would have, as the car wash could see approximately 250 care on a busy day, while the oil/lube facility would have only 25.30 cars per day. It was his view that the traffic impact would be minimal. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY AN*IDERSON AND SECONDED BY BRUIN STUMPF TO DEW THE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ALLOWING AUTO ALAINTENANCE FACILITIES AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE PZM DISTRICT. 7Cc u Council Minutes - 5/13/96 Motion is based on the finding that the proposed.amendment and resulting use is not consistent with the spirit and intent of the Monticello Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance, the proposed amendment and resulting use is likely to have an adverse impact upon surrounding properties, and the proposed use is not consistent with the purpose of the PZM district. Motion carried un nirn usly. A MOTION WAS ALSO MADE BY SEMLEY ANDERSON AND SECONDED BY TOM PERRAULT TO DENY THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN AUTO MAINTENANCE FACILM IN A PZM ZONE AND DENY THE REQUEST FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ALLOWING MINOR AUTOMOBILE REPAIR IN A PLM ZONE. Motion is based on the finding that the proposed uses are not consistent with the spirit and intent of the Monticello Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance, and the proposed uses are likely to have an adverse impact upon surrounding properties. Motion carried unanimously. IMM To: City Council Date: Aug. 26, 1996. We understand a request has been made to rezone.some property near Total Mart, allowing a fast lube and detail center to be built As uwnem of residential homes on Mississippi Drive, we gm�= rezoning that would allow any type of auto maintenance service. If one is allowed, them will be more, and this type of commercial business belongs in the business district and not in our neighborhood. We also do not welcome the noise and increased commercial traffic to this arca. If one area is rezoned, we believe other nearby areas will soon follow. We did not buy homes in this area to be surrounded by this type of commercial development, and do not want to see our property values decline if this happens. Please have this read aloud at the Monday Aug. 26 City Council meeting. Concerned Home Owners, -7EF.V TO, City Council Date : Aug. 26, 1996. We understand a request has been made to rezone some property near Total Mart, allowing a fast lube and detail center to be built. As owners of residential homes on Mississippi Drive, we 2ggM rezoning that would allow any type of auto maintenance service. If one is allowed, there will be mom, and this type of commercial business belongs in the business district and not in our neighborhood. We also do not welcome the noise and increased commercial traffic to this area. If one area is rezoned, we believe other nearby areas will soon follow. We did not buy homes in this area to be surrounded by this type of commercial development, and do not want to see our property values decline if this happens. Please have this read aloud at the Monday Aug. 26 City Council meeting. Concerned Home Owners, 7FFF To: City Council Date : Aug. 26, 1996. We understand a request has leen made to rezone some property near Total Mart, allowing a fast lube and detail center to be built. As owners of residential homes on Mississippi Drive, we oppose rezoning that would allow any type of auto maintenance service. If one is allowed, there will be more, and this type of commercial business belongs in the business district and not in our neighborhood. We also do not welcome the noise and increased commercial traffic to this area. If one area is rezoned, we believe other nearby area will soon follow. We did not buy homes in this area to be surrounded by this type of commercial development, and do not want to see our property values decline if this happens. Please have this mad aloud at the Monday Aug. 26 City Council meeting. Concerned Home Owners, 07GGG To: City Council Date : Aug. 26,1996. We understand a request has been made to rezone some property near Total Mart, allowing a fast lube and detail center to be built. As owners of residential homes on Mississippi Drive, we gpgm rezoning that would allow any type of auto maintenance service. If one is allowed, there will be more, and this type of commercial business belongs in the business district and not in our neighborhood We also do not welcome the noise and increased commercial traffic to this area. If one area is rezoned, we believe other nearby areas will soon follow. We did not buy homes in this area to be surrounded by this type of commercial development, and do not want to we our property values decline if this happens. Please have this read aloud at the Monday Aug. 26 City Council meeting. Concerned Home Owners, r�° a -700 FOR YOUR REVIEW. ENCLOSED IS A COPY OF INFORMATION MAILED TO YOU APPROXIMATELY TWO WEEKS AGO. WE BELIEVE THIS TO BE AN IMPORTANT DECISION AS IT RELATES TO THE FUTURE OF MONTICELLO'S BUSINESS CLIMATE. ULTRA -LUBE. DAN& LINDA MIELKE COUNTRY GRILL, DAVE & SHERRY HENNING COMFORT INN. BOB & GAIL EIDSVOLD �=zz To: Jeff O'Neill, Assistant City Administrator From: Concerned Business Owners Date: August, 1996. RE: A. Creation of a new B -3A (Neighborhood Automotive Related Use District). B. Rezoning of the PZM district located East of the municipal waste water treatment plain and North of Co. Rd. 75 to a B -3A. C. Granting a conditional use permit for a fast lube/detail carter in a new B -3A, or B-3 district. Position: All three of the above requests should be denied for the following reasons: A. Major decisions regarding traffic flow Uuuugh We city an E. Broadway/Hwy. 75, and its impact on future roads, frontage roads, setbacks, etc. should be made first, before any rezoning takes place. B. Rezoning to B -JA or B -J, would lead to the development of two commercial business districts in town. East side vs. Downtown/Hwy. 25 corridor. Monticello businesses have struggled with the business district transition from Downtown to Hwy. 25 corridor: wfiy start the process all over again?? C. Retuning of this area to B -3A or B-3 would increase commercial traffic on Broadway. (Trucks etc.) D. If this property is rezoned to B -3A or B-3, the precedence is set and the two PZM zones to the East and West will be next. What about the adjacent residential property? E. This request benefits a special interest group, and is md in ere best interest of the city's long temp goals and planned development. This property can be developed profitably within the current zoning guidelines. F. Rezoning creates a commercial business environment contradictory to the goals of the city's comprehensive plan, and its unbiased planners. G. The currant PZM zoning is very appropriate for the area, allowing day care, office buildings, dental clinics, etc. 8-2 would remove the ambiguity of a PZM. Both PZM and B-2 zones conform to the city's comprehensive plan, and existing zones around this she. 11. How many D zone categories docs the city want? Wo currently have 4, (BI, B2, B3 and 134). New Request a B -3A — Neighborhood Anru Related District What's Neu o B -3B — Neighborhood hinal Related District???? B -3C — Neighborhood l:'nrerrarnmenr Related District???? I. Authors of the proposed B -3A zero, by virtue of their own description, (Ncighborhoed Autanrotive Relatod Use District) recognize this area as a neighborhood, and not a conmnercial business district. J. Fast Lubes and their RB's, (related businesses) such as Exhaust Pro s, Midas Brakes, Tires Plus. etc.. are Qn neighborhood businesses. They are commercial business district businesses, and arc found in commercial business districts in every other city. K. Professional Demographers have determined that in Monticello. a Fast Lube would creed to straw from a 7 mile minimum rgdiM. Does this constitute a neighborhood business? L An ordinance allowing a Fast Lube/RB in this area of the city sits a precedence mid would likely lead too full scale Auto Mall with no legal wayto deny it. All the moo related franchises have wait ills lobbies and attempt to operate an the same philosophy of"in and out", or "while you wart" sconce. I ask the city officials and governing bodies to stand by their comprehensive plan. Do not allow fragmentation of the commercial business district, and aced a clear message that in Monticello you need to plan your land purchases and business ideas around the comprehensive plan and the zoning requirements Tho city has a good overall plan. Got the E. Broad +ay/Hwy. 75, and 25 South traffic problems solved. Our city officials and governing bodies need strong backs, and tough hides to resist special interests, and than Monticello has the potential to be a model city... serving all its constituents well. ,Stn# •aL #sat A&& - 9( #sit a owe spa. tcpa es V-2 ve see at aU - As aK scomest 21'aat&db i eswastrtat Balani MttW - -7 STT Fast Lubes and their RB's. (related businesses). such as Exhaust Pro's. Midas Brakes.'1'ires Plus. etc. with their "in and out"/"while you wait" nhilosoahies, are Not Neighborhood Businesses. • A convenience store with gas and a car wash is a neighborhood business. Most people get gas, pick up a loaf of bread, grab a newspaper, or wash their car weekly. • Fast Lutms/RB'a are lyj utighboibood businesses. People do not change their oil, replace a belt, have their radiator flushed, replace exhaust, brakes, or tires weekly. • To most people, gas is gas, bread is bread, a touch free car wash is a touch free car wash, and they will not drive across town for this. They will frequent the most convenient locations. Convenience stores are appropriate for neighborhood areas. • When it comes to automobile maintenance or service, which is what a fast lube/RB is, it is a different issue. These are destination businesses. Because these services are not required weekly, people will drive to a destination, even if it's not the most convenient. • Fast I.ube's/RB's cannot survive on neighborhood businesses alone. They must pull in from large areas, resulting in increased traffic in the neighborhood. • Across the state, convenience stores with gas and car wash are frequently round on the fringes of neighborhood developments, but fast lubeslRQ's are not avowed. Fast lubes/U's and their"in and out"/"while you wail" philosophies, arc designated to commercial areas. Why should Monticello develop differently." Fast Lube Industry St. Cloud 87,913 people 3 fast lubes Mankato 18,177 people 2 fast lubes Monticello 11,000 people I under construction 2" proposed • From a business perspective it is questionable whether Monticello is big enough to support 1, let alone 2 fast lubes. There is a reason why one of the major fast lubc chains is not already here. • The Point : If two were to exist in Monticello, both would be fivtw to offer additional services to try to cash flow. => If a Fast Lube is allowed in an area not zoned B-3, how is the city going to monitor the services offered and enforce their conformity to area zoning?T..r KKK Existine Comprehensive Plan • The plan was made for a reason, and by trained individuals in a non -biased position, with a vishmary goal in mind for the future of Monticello. • The plan provides thoughtful, planned, calculated direction for growth. This is especially important in such rapidly growing areas like Monticello. • The plan provides city officials and governing bodies a formal tool from which they can base and justify their decisions, and eases the pressures of politics and special interests. • The plan clearly establishes the Industrial, Commercial, and Residential areas of Monticello. We don't want to be another Buffalo. (Where is the commercial district?) Notes from Tues. Aug. 6. Planning Rt Zoning Meeting. City Slafrs Recommendation to the Board: 1. Deny creation of the new B -3A district. • B -3A further muddies the water with the existing (4) B Districts. • B -3A in this area does not conform to the city's comprehensive plan. • Sets a precedence for future Auto Related Requests. 2. Rezone this arca from PZM to B-2. • B-2 allows all the same uses as a PZM, but more clearly defines what is and is not allowed. • Eliminates the ambiguity of the PZM. • Conforms with the surrounding zonings, and the city's comprehensive plan. 3. In effect, the above two actions would not allow the current past Lube /Detail Center request, or any future auto service/maintenance type of facility in this area. This would then comply with the city's overall comprehensive plan. �LLIL Council Agenda - 8/26/96 A. RFFFRFNCF AND RA .KGROUND: Please see the attached planning report from Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. On August 6, 1996, the Planning Commission held a second discussion on regulating accessory structures and recommended the ordinance language outlined in (Exhibit D) in the attached report. Please see the report for additional detail. 1. Motion to adopt an ordinance amendment addressing accessory buildings, uses, and equipment as outlined in (Exhibit D), based on the findings contained within the Planner's Report. 2. Motion to adopt ordinance amendments B or C. 3. Motion to deny or table adoption of ordinance amendment addressing accessory buildings. Staff recommends Alternative q1. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Planner's reports and exhibits. N o r t h west A s s o c i a t e d C q-0 s u I t a n t s. Inc. MEMORANDUM TO: Monticello Planning Commission Jeff O'Neill FROM: Stephen Grittman DATE: August 1, 1996 RE: Monticello - Accessory Buildings on Small Lots FILE NO: 191.06 96.02 Consideration of Amending the Zoning Ordinance by establishing lindts for detached accessory buildings and garages. Attached to this report Is the information submitted for the July Planning Commission meeting discussing options for the Citys regulation of atxessroy buildings. in that material, staff offered a number of alternatives to clarifying the City's regulations for detached aceeasory bUldings on small residential W. Oiseuseion at that meeting, and between staff members, hes resulted In the attached alternative. This option (Exhibit D) would relate the size of cinched accessory buildings to the size of the roar yard (10% as suggested in the previous draft ordinance Exhibit C) but drop the relation to the size of tho principal building. The building official has suggested that this would be cumbersome to administer, oven though it may be a reasonable measurement of the buildings status as accessory to the principal use. Based on the Commission's discussion and other action taken with previous applications, this altemative also sets a threshhold of 400 square fast which all single and two family residential dwellings would be entitle to, regardless of building or lot size. qJG-02-1996 06:07 r -C 612 595 5837 P.03/1? B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve an Ordinance amendment (Exhibit B) which clarifies the Citys current language as applying exclusively to detached accessory buildings, and keeps the current size restrictions (1,000 square feet). 2. Approve an Ordinance amendment (Exhibft C) which restricts the amourd of accessory building by relating the size to the size of the rear yard and the size of the principal building. 3. Approve an Ordinance amendment (Exhibit D) which restricts the amount. of accessory building by relagrg the size to the size of the rear yard, and speciHcaty permits all single and two family dwellings to have an accessory building of at least 400 square feet. 4. Take no action and leave the Ordinance as currently written. Staff believes that Alternative 413 Inappropriate due to the confusion over its application to attached garages. Therefore, one of the first three alternatives should be chosen, or other language is developed reflecting the City's concerns in this area As noted previously, Exhibit C relates the size of the accessory building to both the lot and the house. Planning stall believes that the impact of an accessory building Is measured by its relationship to these conditions. However, Building department staff motes that tying the size of the accessory building to the house size would be cumbersome to administer, and recommends aftemative 3. We have included all Information from the previous packet to assist in the review of this issue. June 27 Staff Report Exhibit A • current Ordinance tw guage Exhibit 8- Draft Ordinance clarifying Current policy Exhibit C • Draft Ordinance relating to size of lot end stze cf house Exhibit 0 • Draft Ordinance relating to size of lot with minimum size of 400 square feet PO(, Nr 08:07 NPC bld »> 7b�r r. auili rN Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. C COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH MEMORANDUM TO: Monticello Planning Commission - FROM: Bob Iannls/Stephen Grittman DATE: 27 June 1996 RE: Monticello - Zoning Ordinance - Accessory Building Requirements FILE NO: 191.06-96.02 1. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND This memorandum is intended to evaluate the adequacy of the Citys existing accessory building requirements. Of specific Issue Is the adequacy of such requirements as they apply to lots less than 10,000 square feet In area on which a moratorium currently exits. ISSUES Existing Regulation Applicability Policy. In review of the City's existing accessory building regulations (see Exhibit A), it is unclear whether maximum area requirements are to include (or exclude) attached garages. Past City policy has been to exempt attached garages from the maximum area requirements stipulated In the ordinance. Thus, the listed area requirements apply only to detached accessory structures. Regardless of whether any changes of 'substance' aro proposed, it is recommended that the ordinance be rovlsed to clarity City policy. Building Area Requirements. Currently, private garages aro listed as permitted accessory uses in the R-1 and R-2 Districts. Garage area is limited to 1,000 square feet and may not occupy more than 25% of tho roar yard. Such requirements raise concern over whothor an additional detached double garage is an appropriate use of land in association with small single family or twinhome lots, particularly If many such owners take advantage of the current standards. If taken full advantage of, the rear yards of several 40 foot wide twlnhome lots may appear cluttorod and over built, .i SIC/ 5775 Wayzata Blvd, - Suite 555 • SL Louis Park. MN 55416 - (612) 595 -9636 -Fax. 595-9837 WJG-e2-1996 0808 NAC 612 595 9837 P.05/17 Regulation Altemadms If the City wishes to control this potential Intensity of use, the following alternative approaches should be considered: Option 1 • Retain Existing Regulations. An initial option to be considered would be to simply retain the existing accessory building requirements attached as Exhibit A. if such option is desired it is recommended that the existing ordinance language be amended to clarify City policy in terms of applicability. As noted previously, it hes been past City practice to apply such standards only to detached accessory buildings. Attached as Exhibit B is a draft Zoning Ordinance amendment which simply clarifies the applicability of the current standards and provides specific definition of the terms 'accessory building' and 'accessory use'. The following is a listing of pros and cons assodated with retaining the City's existing standards: Pros Cons Ease In administrative handling and citizen understanding. May result in scale problems as no relationship to open space or principal building size is required. Option 2 • Inadhrte a Maximum lot (butiding) coverage requiromertt A second option would be to impose a maximum lot coverage requirement. For a minimum twinhome lot (40 feet by 130 feet), a 1,200 square foot unit and a typical attachod double garage would comprise about 28 percent lot coverage. With a 30 percent maximun, a tool shed sited building would be the only extra lot coverage possible. With a 35 percent maximum, a double garage would be possible. The 30 percent maximum would permit an additional single car garage. The following is a listing of pros and cons associated with this option Pros Would enswe proportlonato retention of open space on all lob. May encourage Interior storage (depending upon lot coverage percentage) Ml Cons • Principal building additions could be discouraged by such means of regulation. • Administrative review of building coverage is necessary. • Larger principal dwelling footprints may prohibit construction of justified accessory storage space. • May discourage interior storage (depending on percentage). • Inequitable accessory storage allowances. Option 3 - Relate maxinnun accessory structure area to a percentage of tate principal structure area. A second option would be to limit garage and accessory structure square footage to a percentage of the principal structure. For instance, a home of 1,200 square feet could have a detached double garage with an accessory building threshold of 35%. A twinhome would have to contain at least 1,600 square feet to qualify for the equivalent of an additional detached three car garage at the 350A ratio. In calculating the area of the principal structure, it is recommended that such calculation apply to livable floor area (as currently defined within the ordinance) so as not to penalize homes which have multiple stories. The following is a listing of pros and cons associated with this option: Pros • Such regulation would establish a fixed relationship between dwelling unit living area and accossory storage space. • A desirable building scale may be maintained. • May encourage Interior storage (depending on lot coverage percentage). Cons • Question exists as to whether Much standards should appy to bum footprint area or total finished square footage. • Administrative calculation of floor areas necessary for all requests. 3 9' 8 kk-02-1956 Oe: 08 "K 612 595 9837 11.iaelve • Larger principal building areas and accessory storage areas would result in loss of open space. Option 4 - Reduce existing rear yard coverage percentage. A fourth option is to utilize the same approach being used currently, but reduce the size thresholds. On atypical• twinhome lot, the rear yard might be expected to be from 2,000 to 2,500 square feet in area. The current regulation of 25% would allow an accessory building of 500 to 625 square feet in this rear yard, a two and one-half to three car garage sued building. Reducing the rear yard lot coverage could reduce the impact of accessory structures In twinhome areas. A maximum of 10% rear yard coverage would limit the twinhome lot to an accessory building the size of a single car garage. The following Is a listing of pros and cons associated with this option: Pros • Insures consistent amount of open space in rear lot areas. • Accessory building size allowance not related to principal building size. Cons C • Administrative calculation of rear yard area necessary. • Accessory building size allowance not related to principal building size. • May result in Increased outdoor storage. Option s - Prohibit detached accessory structures upon small lots. Finaly, the City could choose to eliminate detached accessory structures upon small tots (i.e., -10,000 sq.ft.). Many contemporary twinhome developments may already do to with private covenants. The following Is a listing of pros and cons associated with this option: Pros • Would preserve rear yard open space. • No administrative review. 4 SF AUG -02-1955 et8:;7e rs._ 612 5:: SEs, P.eS/17 Cons Equitable treatment of all twinhcme residents. May not adequately respond to resident needs. May discourage further property investment May not sufficiently acknowledge existence of single family detached dwellings on small lots. Large tot Applicability While the focus of this memorandum is on accessory storage requirements as they apply to small lots, several issues raised may hold applicability to the City's larger single family residential lots as well. The concept of establishing a reasonable relationship between accessory building size and lot/principal dwelling size may have applicability to all single family residential lots within the City. In this regard, the City may wish to apply such regulation to all residential zoning districts. While a simple clarification of the existing ordinance language would have no impact upon existing accessory building allowances, an amendment such as that attached as Exhibit C would alter the amount of allowable accessory building space. For example, a home with 2,000 square fact of livable area an a 12,000 square foot lot could potentially have a detached accessory structure of 700 square feet (35% of livable area), provided such structure area would not occupy more than 10% of the rear yard area. With a typical rear yard aroa of 5,600 square feet, however, it can be anticipated that a maximum accessory building size on a typical R-1 District (12,000 square foot) lot would be 560 square feet B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS. Adoption of amendments to the accessory building and use soclton of the Zoning Ordinanco which clarify the Ordinance language and continue pest City practice of permitting a detached accessory building of up to 1,000 square feet on residential lots, in addition to existing, attached garages. This Alternative is shown as the proposed Ordinance in attached Exhibit B. Adoption of amendments to the accessory building and use section of the Zoning Ordinanco which place restrictions on tho amount of detached accessory structure which may be placed on rosidontial lots, In proportion to both the size of the lot, and the size of the principal structure. This Alternative is shown as the proposed Ordinanco In attached Exhibit C. M AUG -02-1596 08:e9 NRC 612 595 9837 P.09�17 3. Tabling of action on any amendments, subject to o#w Issues and policies identified by the City or public. If one of the two proposed Ordinances do not adequately address the issues and objectives of the City, alternative language should be discussed for fuhue consideration Such Issues may include a change in the City's position on whether both detached accessory structures and attached accessory uses (such as ahached garages) should be subject to these regulations. Past City practice, and the proposed Ordinances, do not include attached garages in the calculations. If the City believes that some amount of accessory building should be allowed on small lots, we would recommend a combination of Option 3 and Option 4. This relates the size of the accessory building to both the principal building and the lot, which would help to keep the building in scale with ib neighborhood By applying the combined test of no more than 35% of livable area of the prindpal building or 10% of the rear yard, whichever is less, a home owner wmdd have the opportunity to construct a limited amount of accessory building, but should not be able to overwhelm the property. A draft Zoning Ordinance amendment reflecting such recommendation is attached as Exhibit C. Attached for reference: Exhibit A - Existing Ordinance Regulations Exhibit B - Draft Amendment - Clarification of Existing Regulations Exhibit C - Draft Amendment - Recommended Regulations fftf ,rt measurements of such area or width are within seventy-five (75) percent of the requirements of this ordinance. 4. Except in the case of planned unit development as provided for in Chapter 10 of this ordinance, not more than one (1) principal building shall be located on a lot. The words "principal building" shall be given their common, ordinary meaning; in case of doubt or on any question or interpretation, the decision of the Building Inspector shall be final, subject to the right of appeal to the Planning Commission and City Council. 5. On a .through lot (a lot fronting on two (2) parallel streets), both street lines shall be front lot lines of applying the yard and parking regulations of this ordinance. ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, USES, AND EQUIPMENT: 1. An accessory building shall be considered an integral part of the principal building if it is connected to the principal building either directly or by an enclosed passageway. 2. No accessory building shall be erected or located within any required yard other than the rear yard..,, 3. Accessory buildings and garages shall not exceed fifteen (15) feet in height and shall be ton (10) feet or more from all side lot lines of adjoining Toto, five (5) feet or more from'the rear lot line, shall be ten (10) feet or more from any other building or structure -on the same lot, and shall not be located within a utility easement. 4. No accessory building or garage shall occupy more than twenty-five (25) percent of a rear yard, nor' exceed one thousand (1,000) square feet of floor area. S. No. permit shall be issued for the construction of more than ono (1) private accessory structure for each dwelling. Each applicant for a building permit to construct any dwellings shall be required to provide off-street parking space for at least ono (1) automobile per family to be housed in addition to any garage space to be used. 17/11/91, #211) MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE Sy FXWMIT A MW -0-1-70 Ltd: Vi I, - � ••• 6. No accessory uses or equipment such as air conditioning cooling structures or condensors which generate noise may be located in a side yard except for side yards abutting streets where equipment is fully screened from view. [El DRAINAGE PLANS: In the case of all apartment, business, and industrial developments, a minimum of 1 sets of drainage plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review, and the final,:drainage plans shall be subject to written approval. A11 dwellings and commercial and industrial buildings shall be constructed such that the ground elevation at the building site will be a minimum of twelve (12) inches above finished street elevation at the building access point. The exact elevation will be determined by the Building Inspector. All garages and parking facilities shall be situated such that there will be direct and positive drainage to the street access at finished grade elevation. All elevations shall be established prior to. issuance of a building permit. Occupancy shall not be granted until the builder j certifies conformance with the grading plan for the lot. The developer shall have a registered land surveyor or engineer certify that the development has been rough graded to within tolerance limits according to the grading plan. [F) GENERAL FENCING, SCREENING, AND LANDSCAPING: 1 . No fence shall exceed six (6) feet in height within a required yard; and in the case of grado separation such as the division of properties by a• rotaining wall, the height shall be dotormined on the basis of measurement from the average point between the highest and lowest grade. 2. No fenco, structure, planting, trees, or mhrubs shall be permitted within the visibility area of any corner formod by proporty lines intersecting with a railway right—of-way. (The visibility area roferrad to above shall be in the form of a triangle with two sides formed by the proporty lines mentioned and the third side formed by a straight line connecting the two (2) twonty-five (25) foot points on both sides of the corner.) �mICELLO CONING ORDINANCE 2/6 AUG -02-1S96 08:09 NPC 612 595 %37 P.12/17 DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 96 -_ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 OF THE MONTICELLO CITY CODE (THE ZONING ORDINANCE) ADDRESSING ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, USES AND EQUIPMENT. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN: Secdon 1. Title 10, Section 2-2 of the Monticello City Code (Definitions) Is hereby amended to delete the following: (AA) Accessory Building of Use: A subordinate building or use which is located on the same lot on which the main building or use Is situated and which is reasonably necessary and Incidental to the conduct of the primary use of such building or main use. Seddon L Title 10, Section 2.2 of the Mcndcoflo City Code (Definitions) is hereby amended to add the following: (�) Br&&�Iwr* an accessory USIX drn a" s�i on.th&me,lotwim.su Vie .1 — - . - . 0! . — Socdm S. Too 10, Section 32.D of the Moftcello City Code (Accessory Building Requirements) is hereby amended to read 89 follows: (D) ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, USES. AND EQUIPMENT: An acco wry building Mail be considered an Integral part of ft principal building If it is connected to the principal building either directly or by an enclosed passageway. EXHIBIT B q K PX -02-1996 08:10 NL1C 612 555 9837 P. 13/17 2 No deWwo accassory building shall be wedad or located within any required yard other than the rear yard. 3. Detached accessory buildings shall not exceed fifteen (15) feet in height and shall be ten (10) feet or more from all side lot lines of adjoining lots, five (5) feet or more from the rear lot line, shall be ten (10) feet or more from any other building or structure cm the same lot, and shalt not be located within a utility easement 4. No dgtgchetl accessory building shall occupy more thhan twenty-five (25) percent of the rear yard, nor exceed one thousand (1,000) square feet of floor area. 5. No permit shall be issued for the construction of more than one (1) detached accessary structure for each dwelling. Each applicant for a building permit to construct any dwellings shall be required to provide off-street parking space for at least one (1) automobile per family to be housed in addition to any garage space to be used. 1 8. No accessory uses or equipment such as air conditioning cooling structures or condensers which generate noise may be located in a side yard except for side yards abutting streets where equipment is fully screened from view. Section 4. This Ordinance shall become effective Immediately upon Its passage and publication. ADOPTED by tho Monticello City Council, this _ day of 1998. CITY OF MONTICELLO By: ATTEST: Brad F0, Mayor By. Ayes: Rids Woffsteller, Administrator Neys: 2 9L AW -U -i9% 0810 t 4zC DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 96 612 535 9837- P.14117 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 OF THE MONTICELLO CITY CODE (THE ZONING ORDINANCE) ADDRESSING ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, USES AND EQUIPMENT. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN: Section I. Title 10, Section 2-2 of the Monticello City Code (Definitions) is hereby amended to delete the following: (AA) Access= Building -or Use: A subordinate building or use which Is located on the same lot on which the main building or use Is situated and which is reasonably necessary and incidental to the conduct of the primary use of such building or main use. Section 2. TWe 10, Section 2-2 of the Monticello City Code (Definitions) is hereby amended to add the following: (AA)p0m� 1--,&'det6w 0 .op.bu0 prin.dpatpulldin - . q; _.. pitum- art accessory, use; . . t0on a,storrleri�incitlantel;8fid,tt�bordE'1atsNr',thgprlii�ipRa.°bW�!4,a1,id located On; the'same'Ibi;W)tli'suarDcfitdpa4,Us� Section 3. 'rdle 10. Section 3-2,D of the Monticello City Code (Accessory Building Requirements) is hereby amended to read as follows: (0) ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, USES, AND EQUIPMENT: An accessory building shall be considered an integral part of the principal building If it is connected to the principal building either directly or by an enclosed Passageway. EXHIBIT C PUG -02-1956 08 10 NPC 612 595 9877 P.15/17 2. No detached accessory building shall be erected or located within any required yard other than the rear yard. 3. DetatdW acoessory buildings shall not eased fifteen (15) feet In height and shall be ten (10) feet or more from all side tot lines of a4oirleg lots, five (5) feet or more from the rear lot line, shell be ten (10) feet or more tram any other building astructure on the same lot, and shall not be located whhin a utility easement 4. No.otetacheifµacces6ory_btMrigpepM ottt)e lfirapie`tloor ares ot;9>eplfngpal'"dwellfg:gjtetiEtO)' Perer?tgf the:fearyard,:whirrAeveris tpast 5. No permit shall be issued for the construction of more than one (1) detadwd accessory structure for each dwelling. Each applicant for e buiidtng permit to construct any dwellings stall be required to provide off-street perking space for at least one (1) automobile per faro i ly to be housed in addition to any garage space to be used. 1 6. No accessory uses or equipment such as air conditioning cooling structures or condensers which gener-ate noise may be located in a side yard except for side yards abutting streets where equipment Is fully sxcenod from view. Section 4. This Ordinance shall become arfloctive immediately upon its peasage and publication. ADOPTED by the Monticello City Council, he _ day of 1888. CITY OF MONTICELLO By: Brad Fyfe, Mayor ATTEST: By: Ayes: Rick Wolfsteller, Administrator Nays: 2 8d PuG-02-19% 08:11 NAC DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 96 - 612 595 98357 P. 16i17 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 OF THE MONTICELLO CITY CODE (THE ZONING ORDINANCE) ADDRESSING ACCESSORY BUILDINGS. USES AND EQUIPMENT. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN: Section 1. Title 10, Section 2-2 of the Monticello City Code (Definitions) is hereby emended to delete the following: (AA) AceessaN Building or Use: A subordinate building or use which is located on the same lot on which the main building or use is situated and which is reasonably necessary and Incidental to the conduct of the primary use of such building or main use. Section 2. Title 10, Section 2-2 of the Monticello City Code (Definitions) is hereby amended to add the following: (AA41':delfi!! e" prhtcipa(.buiuslrtg;ot.,o;deteched sttyctute �on;ttie:�m�;)of:4r!lidti l.A:!�dt'o! an tarces3br use; (A!4� A> bry , U q �4;; ct:,.a' Ian _or;-aE ;e.; bui�dh +`ar _00mon tt�reos patoat8�ly'lnCiQeMel,:ettC:at�Don�te_io�the•P.rinc;Palrli�+g•� bested on',Ute.aatne'Ibt.wltti-such yckicjpattls'�, Section S. Title 10. Section 3-2. D of the Monticello City Code (Accessory Building Requirements) Is horeby amended to road as follows: (D) ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, USES, AND EQUIPMENT: An accessory building shall be considered an Integral part of the principal building if It is connected to the prtndpal building either directly or by an enclosed passageway. EXHIBIT D i A Ub:44 rte. — — ---- . . – .- 2 I NoOeWved aocessory b9ding shall be erected or located within any required yard other than the rear yard. 3. lZotacpo accessory buildings shall not exceed fifteen (115) feet in height and shall be ton (10) feet or more from all side lot lines of acgoirft lots, five (5) feet or more from the rear lot line, shall be ten (10) fed or more from any other buDdbV or structure an the same lot and shall not be located within a utility easement. 4. No,'49tachpd,sr *0sq-,Ou . -.y .#d 0 - Yper Of." reti*., d- . Y_* p: 400 5. No permit shall be issued for the construction of more than one (1) 09teoW accessory structure for each dwelling. Each applicant for a hUMV permit to construct any dwellings shall be required to provide off-street parking space for at least one (1 ) automobile per family to be housed in addition to any garage spam to be used. 6. No accessory uses or equipment such as air condkmlng cooling structures or condensers wtdch generate noise may be located in a side yard except for skis yards abutting streets where equipment Is fully screened from view. Socton 4. This Ordinance shall become affectivo Immediately upon its passage and publication. ADOPTED by the Montloollo City CmY4 No _ day of 1998. CITY OF MONTICELLO By: ATTEST: Brad FyIe, Mayor By. Ayes: Rick Wolfsteller, Administrator Noys: -AL P.02 I ACCESSORY BUILDING AREA/SIZE ILLUSTRATION Typical Rear Yard Area (80x70) SCALE: 1" a 30' Minimum Rear Yard Area (80x30) x•10' \�10'J 30• i � 1 i r � Ilf FRONT 0 Council Agenda - 8/26/96 Lu" (R.W.) Members of the volunteer fire department will likely be in attendance at the meeting to request that the City Council consider an increase in their retirement benefit from the present $1,325 per year of service to $1,400 per year. This is the benefit that is payable in a lump sum after 20 years of service on the fire department. The following is a summary of the previous benefit increases that have been approved. 1987 $ 875 per year of service 1988 $ 975 per year of service 1989 $1,075 per year of service 1990 $1,175 per year of service 1992 $1,225 per year of service 1994 $1,300 per year of service 1995 $1,325 per year of service By August 1 of each year, the Relief Association must present to the City Council a schedule of the proposed benefits and total liabilities associated with the proposed benefit in comparison to the assets of the Association. Typically, it has been the past policy of the Council that they would only consider increases to occur in the yearly pension amounts if the Association had sufficient income projected to cover the increase. In other words, the state aid and interest earnings on investments needed to be projected at a level sufficient to cover the normal annual cost of the pension calculations based on the requested $1,400 per year amount. In the past, the City Council has not supported any benefit level that would require a contribution from the City as a tax levy. The pension schedule report provided by the Fire Relief Association treasurer indicates that the Association should have s,►fficient funds to support an increase in the pension to $1,400 per year of service. This assumption is based on the Association earning interest on its investments at the rate of approximately 9% for the year 1996, which is based on a 5 -year average of their investment return. It should be noted that the reason the City Council must approve any increase in the Reliefs porLsion is that ultimately, if the Council Agenda - 8/26/96 projected revenue is not sufficient to cover the pension liability, the City is liable for the difference. Although the past five years' earning history should be a good indicator of the projected revenue along with state aid, the City does not have any control over a bad investment market nr if the State decides to cut back on its state aid. State aids are not guaranteed, although it seems unlikely that a dramatic change in the state aid would occur, as it affects many departments throughout the state. A few years ago, the City did receive less state aid than had been originally expected because of the way the formula had changed in determining our aid amount, which resulted in the City being required to kick in $691 to support the pension. This is the only time that I can remember the City participating in the Relief pension amounts, but the Council should be aware that there are no guarantees that state aid or other interest earnings will always be sufficient based on projections. The only way to be entirely sure of no municipal support is only to allow the Association to increase benefits when their assets exceed their liabilities. Right now, their assets are approximately $369,500, and their liabilities would be $393,600 if the $1,400 annual amount was approved. A. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: `' 1. Grant an increase to $1,400 per year/$28,000. S �' y4� This increase, according to the Relief Association's schedule, would not require a City contribution and should be able to be funded through anticipated state aids and other interest earnings on investments, although there is not a guarantee. As I noted earlier, the interest earnings are based on a 9% return, which has been the average over the last 5 years for the Association. 2. Do not grant an increase in benefits at this time and only allow an i fin. increase to occur when the Association has more assets than liabilities. 9 At this time, it is projected that it would take a couple more years yet before the Association could increase the benefits on their own without Council approval. While the projections do not show a largo surplus of revenue or what is needed to sustain a $1,400 benefit, these /' calculations are normally sufficient to handle the increased proposed unless state aids are cut for some reason. Al 0k Council Agenda - 8/26/96 C. STAFF RECOIVMNDATION; Based on the Relief Association financial computations, it appears that the pension amount can be increased to $1,400 per year without requiring a City contribution. Based on this information, I have no reason to object to the increase being granted as long as the City Council realizes there are no guarantees that state aid or investment earnings will continue at the present level. D. SUPPORTING DATA Computation of benefits for each member at the $1,400 per year level of service. L Form SC-% SCHEDULE I -D FOR LUMP SUM PENSION PLANS STATE FIRE AID YEAR 1997 efighters Relief Associuion of Monticello County of Wriqht SCHEDULE I Computation of benefit of relief sssodaaon special Omd (a $ 1. 4 0 per year of service) for all members baud on their years of service as active fire department members. 1 2 3 4 3 6 7 1996 * 1997 F.D. To End if This Year To End if Nut Year Name Age &v- D= Years Active Accrued Years Active Accrued Mont! Year Service "ability Service "ability T. Farnam 49 3 73 24 33,600 25 35,000 2, J. Morrell 53 5 75 22 30,800 23 32,200 13. S. Douqlae 44 3 76 21 29.400 22 30.800 14. W. LaBree 40 5 77 20 28,000 21 29.400 13. M. Wellen 41 5 77 20 28.000 21 29-4QQ_ 16. G. Dahlheimer 45 2 78 19 25.816 20 28.000 17, J. Wein 43 12 78 18 23,772 19 25.816 18. M. Johnson 39 3 81 16 19.992 17 21.840 �9, M. Theisen 39 5 82 15 18,256 16 19,992 �10. 2. Liofect 37 11 83 13 14.980 14 IA -576 _ B. Fvlo 38 5 84 13 14.980 14 16.576 tt2, K. Stumpf 36 5 85 12 13,468 13 14,980 �13, G. [toot 34 10 85 11 12,012 12 13,468 �14. T. Bromor 33 12 85 11 12,012 12 13,468 113. 11 Ton] from Pace 2 •• DEFERRED Total of Deferred Pensions, If Any, Told from papa 2 Tom] Unpaid Installments If Any, Tont from vm 2 Total of Early Vested Pensions �j If Arrv. Total from page 2 A. Accrued Liability Through Nat Year 1997 (lana, column 7), > 434.028 B. Accrued 1Lbility T6rotto Thio Year 1996 Jtotal, column S) 393.624 _> C. Subtract Um B ffom "ne_A_SnotmalStlsU 40,404 �I Fracdonal Years of service must be nkuLrcd to amrort lidl yar. Do not enter Ii&Wty in Columns 3 or 7 fat any peatam Who will eecelve i'ndm pension dntitlg this year. Etna this pemtirm amount on Schedule It. Section 1, Um h. For iastallmem HaNlity. enter t moam Which will be pay&* ager end of mice yar In bt11b column S and If irac= is to be on unpaid add Imelm for I in column 7. column 7. pendant, A copy of these schedules must be ptnemed to year the City Council before August 1 eacb year. Pace I 13. (7 mos. in 194) 116. L. Dahlhaimer 29 5 96 1 840 117, s.Hannon 24 5 96 1 840 19. 1120. 1. zz. 23. 124. 25. Sgh4nta111Ute�tt4r�rndtsr_QabR11.r _ 393.624 Accrued Naete I An Env Date `ADM 1 ua1>ulty Deferred Pendow 11. I z. 13. 14. �Sabtotal_oClkhradBeadoaa I 1 I Unlodd ItltuaDmema 1 12, 1 RvMaaLaW098d 08011"" I i FArh Versed Peadoes 4. tilttrlanLaf A _VettedBt%*9% 2 1-736 2 1,736 �- 434.02 Awned Usbilg)C_ PAP 2 96 SCHEDULE I - ADDMONAL MP. MEMS 2 3 4 7�'� 1996 1997 MX P.D. To End of Ibis Year To jEad �d Next Peat Name Ar Zav-D= Years Active Accrued Year Active Accrued Year Service Liattilitr Service LiaDSn Rntulu Pennon I 11. M. Simpson 40 1 87 10 10.640 11 12.012 12. L. Larsen 35 1 87 10 10,640 11 12,012 13. N. Kranz 29 5 87 10 10.640 11 4. S. Samuelson 32 11 87 9 9,324 10 10,640 S. B. Stumpf 33 7 88 8 8,064 9 9.324 16. B. Cvr 32 1 90 6,888 _R Anag_ 17. J. Michaelis 32 1 90 7 6.888 8 8.064 16. G. Sonstaby 31 5 93 4 3,640 5 4,676 19. R. Lvmar 32 5 93 4 I—o0 5 4.676 110. J. Kranz 32 5 93 4 3,640 5 4.676 In. J. Johnson 30 5 93 4 3.640 5 4.676 112. S. Joerg 32 10 94 2 1.736 3 2.660 113. P. Drew 31 10 94 2 1.736 3 2.660 114. R. Vollbracht 40 1 90 6 5,740 7 6,888 13. (7 mos. in 194) 116. L. Dahlhaimer 29 5 96 1 840 117, s.Hannon 24 5 96 1 840 19. 1120. 1. zz. 23. 124. 25. Sgh4nta111Ute�tt4r�rndtsr_QabR11.r _ 393.624 Accrued Naete I An Env Date `ADM 1 ua1>ulty Deferred Pendow 11. I z. 13. 14. �Sabtotal_oClkhradBeadoaa I 1 I Unlodd ItltuaDmema 1 12, 1 RvMaaLaW098d 08011"" I i FArh Versed Peadoes 4. tilttrlanLaf A _VettedBt%*9% 2 1-736 2 1,736 �- 434.02 Awned Usbilg)C_ PAP 2 96 Schedule II Section 1 Demmimtioo of Projected Net Assets for the year ending December 31. 1996 -pecial Fund Asseu u December 31. 1995 IS 337,605 (See Ending Aman in Repomog Form - 1995) Projected Income m December 31. 1996 a. Mimesom Stere Aid S 33,234 (Use 1995 amoum, exclude ) b. Mudeipzl (imepumdeat fire) Concibutiom S c. Dont = (Lia 1 S d. investment Income f B4 e. Realized Gains (losses) S f. Unsalired Gains (lams) f g. Other income (InGodes Supplemental) f 1,000 (Lis - ) Total 2$ 64.618 Projected Assts plus I== December 31. 1996 (line I + line 2) 3$ 402.223 Projected Disbursemems through end of year b. Pensions;+ supplemontal $1,000 S 30,216 i. Other bewfiu $ 1,200 j. Administrative S 1,300 Tota) 4$ 32,716 Projected Assets at end of year (lire 3 mime lira 4) SS 369.507 Section 2 Duaadnadon qf PrttjecW Swplw Poldt) at of Decmber 31. 1996 Proje cd Assets (line S) 65 369.507 Accrued Liability (line B. Scbedule 1) 7$ 393,624 Surplus (deficit) (Subum line 7 from line 6) 8S (24,117) • Go to Seedon 3 (/Smpfua • Go to Section 4 (/ D&O Section 3 Damdu tm 4 xmddpd CoerriDttdon NSwpbu) Normal Cos (Line C. SclieAule 1) 9$ Calculated Admlmmadve Egmw (1995 Reporft Form Adm. flap. f a 1.035) 10 S Las: t. Mirmsxa Sum AW S 1. 5% of Ilse 5 i M. 10% of line 8 S TOW Suboacdom 11 S Municipal COanibudoo (line 9. pion 10 falcon 11) US ' S1.00 or greater. cerdfy m mmicipality before Augtm I. 1996. If oeguive mtmbcr, m caouibmloo b due. GO TO SEMON 3 Pace 3 V Section 4 Darrrm%ulmt of Ahwfdpal Cmunbsmon ff DOW) Amo= m of Deftcus. Year Incurred Cohtme I Cob=n 2 Cohom 3 Aaa® Rabd t9 r11m Amount Left to Onesmal Amount Yen Retire 19 %g 10,570 6,664 3,906 19_94 25,803 7,740 18,063 119 95 2,386 238 2,148 a 24, 117 (Kerion 2. tlm 6 lig-- Zy it etueae.6,meb„ s mroW » o. (Cah mn 3 Sebtaa) M— M tldrea (19M P. (u. mimn o.) Toul+ 38,759 14,642 24,117 Q Step 01 U dim p is positive, emu lite p to eohsmm 1 and 3 of New additional Deficit (96) line. ntd is you Neon adduoeal Deficit for 1996.) Step 0 Z If rim p is negadve. rednee whmm 2 and 3 according to Deficit Redttctlun in the imt uctlata. page 6. Amortization 9f Deficit (Taal from Cohtmo 1 38.759 &,10) Us 3,876 Taal from line C. Sciudule 1. Normal Cog 14S 40,404 Calcuhted Admlmntative Eapeme (1993 Reporting Pam Adm. Eap. 3.82 7 a 1.035) 15S 17TC— Subtoal S.ioct 13+14+15 16S 48,241 Lew q. Minne Sure Aid S 33.234 5% of lime 5 S 18.475 ToW Subtractions (gtbtoal of Linn q and r) 1711 51.709 Municipal Comibdion (line 16 migm tine 17) 186 —3,468 fry 0 or aladve. Here 4 w aowiapa( compOwAva) (ourpluo ) VON moat certlh to rnunkhutity before Aurva 1. 1996, awn it no comAlMiom Is dae, Section 5 Cdcukwm of Average 47ecid And (nmaw per membri A+R+C l D A 8 C D E Sate Mtmictpl Iota of Active AM Sunoon Surotna Mcmbera Average last year 1995 33,236 --- --- 29 11146 2 years ago 1994 31.129 10 1.038 3 yon algo 1993 29,382 28 :.049 nt wToham E divided by 3 > 1,078 1 ,233 Maximum pemion Benefit undo G uataa S 1 , 900 I Loot up Ore regal of P m me obi (pp 7 fn dr hworatli0m) to Obtain O. t M& is your meati®® benefit Iht year. You a m inctaaaa benefta bey wd orb amoum Pap 4 9b Council Agenda - 8/26/96 • The City recently received information from realtors representing Art Anderson of an interest by Anderson to sell his property for development purposes. The Anderson property is located in the township directly across from the Oak Ridge subdivision. As you know, a petition for annexation of property under control by Orrin Thompson Homes has also been made. Action on this project was tabled some time ago pending completion of the wastewater treatment plant. According to the agreement between the City and the Township, these properties are imt located in what is known as the "Urban Service Area," which means that they are = eligible for immediate annexation. The purpose of the Urban Service Area is to identify properties most logical for annexation and to avoid leapfrog development. The Urban Service Area was identified in 1990. Since that time, there has been a substantial amount of development of the areas within the Urban Service Area, and perhaps it is time to consider amending the Urban Service Area map accordingly. With respect to both properties, when the original Urban Service Area was established, the properties were separated from city services by land now occupied by the Oak Ridge development. Now that the Oak Ridge development is complete, and the Meadow Oak storm sewer outlet system is installed, both properties now meet many of the criteria that aro used in establishing which properties should belong in the Urban Service Area. Therefore, the request to include this land in the Urban Service Area appears reasonable. SANITARY SEWER CAPACITY SHORTAGE According to a recent study funded by Orrin Thompson Homes and Tony Emmerich, the sanitary sewer capacity available to serve the general vicinity is limited to 120 acres of line capacity. This means that it would be impossible to fully develop the Emmerich property, the Orrin Thompson property, and the Art Anderson property because the land area encompassed by all of these properties together amounts to 160 acres. Bret Weiss indicated that it might be possible to servo all 160 acres; however, it will not be known if capacity for more than 120 acres exists until the 120 acres is on line. Please note that Tony Emmerich may no longer have control over the 40 -acre "Peterson" property, which is already in the Urban Service Area directly cast of Meadow Oak. Council Agenda - 8/26196 FUTURE TRUNK SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION As you may recall, the trunk sanitary sewer report revealed a very high cost to develop trunk sanitary sewer for this area, and there are no plans to expand capacity for this area in the near term. Both the tnmk sanitary sewer plan and the comprehensive plan point general residential development toward the south and southwest sides of the city where development can occur on a more compact, efficient basis and where the cost to install trunk sanitary sewer systema is less. Further, portions of the tank sanitary sewer systems needed to serve the southeast area can be built over time and funded by other land development projects. In sum, it appears that it is physically and financially impossible to allow development beyond 120 acres to occur in this area at this time. Following are other circumstances relating to development of the three major parcels of land competing for the remaining capacity. EMMERICH/PETERSON PROPERTY The Emmerich/Peterson property consists of approximately 40 acres bounded by the freeway to the north, Meadow Oak development to the east, and a wetland to the south. This area was included in the Urban Service Area because there was road access to the site, and utilities are located along the eastern side of Meadow Oak that could easily serve the area. This site bounded by the freeway on one side is rolling and relatively nice; however, it would not be likely to result in home values equal to homes built in the Orrin Thompson or Art Anderson area. Although Tony Emmerich appeared to have an option or control over the site, it does not now appear that he has control, and there may be no short -tern prospects for development at this site. ORRIN THOM PSON PROPERTY The 80 -acre site for the Orrin Thompson development is located in a position adjacent to the location of city utilities. Sanitary sower could easily be extended to this area. In addition, the Meadow Oak trunk storm sower system was sized to handle this area; however, special efforts will need to be made in order to divert flow from the Orrin Thompson development area to ditch 33. It is not known at this tame what exact mothod or coat is involved in diverting the flow. In addition, half of the development site is located within the planning area for the city and township known as the Orderly Annexation Area. The other half is located entirely in the township and outside of the planning area. Tho planning area was established in tho early 1970's to designate the area thought at that time to be the ultimate boundaries of the city. This is a very clear and distinct lino for planning Council Agenda - 8/28/96 purposes, which the City, Township, and County manage cooperatively. There is no rule, however, that says that the City cannot annex land outside of its Orderly Annexation Area. Please note that a goal of the Planning Commission in 1997 is to expand or shift the boundaries of the planning area to reflect conditions in 1997. ART ANDERSON PROPERTY When the Urban Service Area boundaries were established in 1990, the Art Anderson property was clearly =J eligible for inclusion in the Urban Service Area because sewer and water service was nowhere near the property. As a result of the development of the Oak Ridge subdivision and due to Meadow Oak storm sewer improvements, the Art Anderson property now has many of the characteristics of the Peterson property. In fact, it has the advantage of being located entirely within the City's Meadow Oak storm sewer watershed. No major improvements are necessary to channel storm water from this site to an existing system. The Anderson property is also entirely within the Orderly Annexation Area, meets the requirements of basic criteria for being placed in the Urban Service Area. Therefore, considering placement in the Urban Service Area at this time deserves merit. Ii. I.T . NATIV . ACTION : Motion to request that the Township consider amending the Urbanization Plan to include bWh the Art Anderson and Orrin Thompson properties in the Urban Service Area based on the finding that the properties aro ripe for annexation due to proximity to sanitary sewer and water service and due to immediate availability of trunk storm sewer service. Under this alternative, a letter would be submitted to the Township requesting an amendment to the Urban Service Area map. If the Township agrees with the proposed change, then the developers would be free to start the process of development, which would include preparation of a development plan, which would then be followed by review and subsequent annexation/subdivision approval. Under this plan, there would be more acreage within the Urban Service Area than what the City can servo at this time. Development would then be allowed on a first-come, first-served basis. Once the capacity is used up, there would be Urban Service Area property remaining that could not connect to city services. This option is not likely to receive support from the Township because it would result in annexation of land (Orrin Thompson) which is now outside of the OAA planning area. Please note that Township support is not necessary to Council Agenda - 8/26196 allow annexation of the Orrin Thompson property, but such action by the City without Township support would likely result in termination of the urbanization plan. Motion to approve request by Ari Anderson and approve inclusion of the 40 acres of the 80 requested by Orrin Thompson. This option would result in equal land and sanitary sewer capacity in the Urban Service Area and would force available capacity to be used entirely within the MOAA boundaries. This option is likely to have the greatest support of the Township but could result in Orrin Thompson abandoning its project. Motion to approve Art Anderson and Orrin Thompson requests and remove the Peterson/Emmerich property from the Urban Service Area. This would result in capacity equally developable land area. Peterson has not been contacted regarding this matter. C. STAFF IIFCOMMFNDATION: This is a relatively confusing topic that is complicated by the need to 1) maintain a good working arrangement with the Township, 2) provide fair treatment of the property owners involved where two of the property owners have invested funds in development of a sanitary sewer study, and 3) sanitary sewer capacity is limited, and the cost to extend trunk lines or provide alternative methods for serving a larger area is limited. It is our recommendation that the City Council determine which option helps accomplish the following goals outlined in the comprehensive plan: 1) encouragement of development of homes with higher land values, 2) development of homes in areas easily served with city utilities, 3) maintenance of cooperative agreements with the Township and County, 4) preservation of natural amenities and features. Based on the goals outlined above, it is our view that the best properties for development at this time are the Art Anderson and Oran Thompson properties. They both aro removed and located away from the freeway, adjacent to one of the nicer developments in the community, and would likely develop into an area with housing values that would be at a minimum equal to the Oak Ridge development and probably closer to the Briar Oakes development. It is our view that the Peterson property, though very nice, will not result in property values equal to the Art Anderson property, and ditch 33 storm water issues may arise with the Peterson property and not with the Anderson property. Council Agenda - M6/96 With regard to the Orrin Thompson development area, this parcel also has many of the attributes of the Anderson site; however, there probably will need to be a greater level of investment in infrastructure in order to move stone water from the Orrin Thompson site to the city system. The problem with bringing the Orrin Thompson site into the Urban Service Area is that a portion of it is not even in the OAA. But again, the OAA is somewhat of an artificial line drawn in the mid -70's; thus, perhaps its placement in or outside of the OAA should not necessarily have a bearing on a decision relating to annexation. Okay, so what's the recommendation? Perhaps it makes sense to include all properties with direct access to utilities in the urbanization area because in having direct access, they all meet the basic criteria for being in the urbanization area. We should then attempt to convince the Township of the merits of this position. Development of the three -parcels would then be allowed on a first-come, first-served basis. Copy of urbanization plan; Map showing affected parcels. RESOLUTION 90-52 URBANIZATION PLAN JOINT RESOLUTION BETWEEN T'HE TOWN OF MONTICELLO AND THE CITY OF MONTICELLO CONCERNING THE ORDERLY ANNEXATION AREA WHEREAS; reoccurring boundary adjustments have occurred between the City of Monticello and the Town of Monticello for the last twenty years and uncertainty as to future adjustments has resulted; and WHEREAS; responding to requests for boundary adjustments on a case by case basis, apart from an overall plan for urbanization, is expensive, time consuming, and counterproductive; and WHEREAS; it has been difficult for the Town of Monticello and the City of Monticello and property owners within the Orderly Annexation Area to plan separately for development and growth; and WHEREAS; the Minnesota Municipal Board has requested that the Monticello Orderly Annexation Board, the City, and the Town work cooperatively in re-examining the future of the Orderly Annexation Area to determine if development is being properly focused; and WHEREAS; the Minnesota Municipal Board has urged the City and Town to approach the orderly annexation issue with a spirit of cooperation; and WHEREAS; it appears to be in the best interest of both parties that joint cooperation and planning between the parties be conducted; and WHEREAS; the parties want to stabilize and enhance the predictability of boundary adjustments; and WHEREAS; there is a basis for agreement between the parties for accomplishing these goals, and the parties hereto do set forth the terms of this agreement by the following: The Town of Monticello and the City of Monticello hereby jointly agree to the following: 1. CONTINUING THE MONTICELLO ORDERLY ANNEXATION AREA That the following Orderly Annexation Area in the Town of Monticello was established by a Minnesota Municipal Board Order on December 8, 1972, as in need of orderly annexation pursuant to Minnesota Statute Chapter 414, et al. URBANPLN.RES: 9/13/90 Page 1 /0 0+ 2. LAND USE GUIDE PLAN The Town of Monticello and the City of Monticello, upon their adoption of this policy, approve the Monticello Orderly Annexation Area Plan which is attached as Exhibit "B" (hereinafter referred to as the Guide Plan). 3. URBAN SERVICE AREA The area identified within the Guide Plan -as the "Urban Service Area" is an area that abuts the City of Monticello and is presently urban or suburban in nature or is about to become urban or suburban. Further, the City of Monticello is now capable of providing municipal water and sanitary sewer to this area. 4. ANNEXATION PROCESS Annexation should be allowed to occur upon the following terms and conditions: A. The property must be located within the above described "Urban Service Area"; B. The property owner must petition both the City of Monticello and the Town of Monticello for annexation; C. The property owner shall submit a development plan to the City of Monticello and the Town of Monticello showing the need for municipal water and sanitary sewer for at least 80% of the property petitioned for annexation; D. The development plan must be of sufficient detail to show it will meet the standards and requirements of the City of Monticello's zoning and planning ordinance, land use plan, comprehensive plan, utilities plan, assessment procedures, and financing plan; E. Municipal water and sanitary sewer shall be installed and ready for use within two (2) years from the date of annexation; and F. There shall be no future petitions for annexation until all previous conditions in the development plan have been complied with. Prior to final City approval of the development plan, said plan shall be submitted to the Town of Monticello for review. Concerns expressed by the Town of Monticello shall be addressed prior to formal approval of the development plan by the City of Monticello. URBANPLN.RES: 9/13/90 Page 2 1N All efforts will be made to establish development plans that incorporate the land use planning efforts of both the City of Monticello and the Town of Monticello. No development plan shall be considered by the City under this agreement without written summary of comments submitted by the Town of Monticello to the City of Monticello . If the City receives written approval of the development plan from the Town, a joint petition for annexation shall be submitted to the Minnesota Municipal Board. If the Town of Monticello does not approve the development plan, the City shall then either reject the development plan, or the issue may be submitted to the Minnesota Municipal Board pursuant to Minnesota Statute Chapter 414. 6�04ZIW The term of this agreement shall be ten (10) years from the effective date of this agreement. Both parties reserve the right to terminate this agreement upon sixty (60) days' written notice. The effective date shall be upon the approval of the City Council of the City of Monticello and the Town Board of the Town of Monticello and acceptance by the Minnesota Municipal Board and said subsequent order approving this agreement. LAND USE /ZONING AND PLANNING The zoning and planning throughout the Orderly Annexation Area as described above shall be under the control of the Monticello Orderly Annexation Board until annexed to the City of Monticello. If the property is annexed to the City of Monticello, the property shall be designated as agricultural according to the City of Monticello Zoning and Planning Ordinances. Any alteration or change to the zoning classification shall be subject to a public hearing to be held by the City of Monticello Planning Commission. The City of Monticello shall notify the Town of Monticello of said land use classification hoaring. 7. TAXES Any and all of the property taxes collected in the Orderly Annexation Area shall remain the property of the Town of Monticollo. Any and all property taxes collected from annexed properties shall be the property of the City of Monticello after Such time that said property actually receives City sewer and water cervico or after expiration of a period of three (3) years, whichever occurs sooner. URBANPLN.RESs 9/13/90 Page 3 8. ISOLATED TOWN PROPERTY Any property within the "Urban Service Area" that becomes or is about to become isolated as a result of annexation proposed under Section 4 shall be submitted for consideration to the Minnesota Municipal Board along with the proposed annexation for consideration by the Minnesota Municipal Board. In general, the creation of such isolated parcels should be avoided. DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE AREA IDENTIFIEV ON THE ANNEXATION PLAN AS THE AGRICULTURAL AREA. No development should occur within the orderly annexation area which is outside the "Urban Service Area" as described in the MOAA Annexation Plan unless said development meets the standards of the zoning and subdivision requirements of the Monticello Orderly Annexation Borird, the City of Monticello, and the Town of Monticello. Said development can only occur if all local government standards are complied with or are capable of being complied with in the future. The intent of this paragraph is to strongly discourage development outside the "Urban Service Area" as identified in the Orderly Annexation Plan. CITY OF MONTICELLO Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Monticello this 13th day of November �� By Its or ATT City t nistrator URBANPLN.RES: 9/17/90 TOWN OF MONTICELLO Passed and adopted by the Town Board of the Town of Monti c 1 this 4S Zk day o; 19-(: B ATTEST ' M�v Town Boara clerk Page 4 ioD 11.16 1 1.1c In LJ A Al" 4 1 Aw A M11-5 L MONTICELLO ORDERLY ANNEXATION AREA I 7 ,,,.,- PZ -M Cy 1� CURRENT ORDERLY ANNIMATION BOUNDARY CMENT URBAN SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY PROPOSED URBAN pSRVICB AR{ A. SCU DARV 4 CDatUT cm UNITS ART \ '� ANDERSON ' PROPERTY i J ORIN T11OKPSON PROPPERTY V 1 BridgeLand Development Company August 22, 1996 Honorable Mayor and City Council do Jeff (Neill, Assistant City Administrator City of Monticello 250 East Broadway Monticello, MN 55362 RE: Monticello Urban Service Arca Amendment Dear Mr. ONeill: Per our meeting on August 15th, enclosed is our letter and supporting documentation for our petition for a Monticello Urban Service Area Amendment for our property. As we discussed, after this property is included in the Monticello Urban Service Area, we will be petitioning for annexation of this property into the City of Monticello fiom bionUcello Township. After annexation, it would be our intention to immediately apply to the City of Monticello for Preliminary Plat appy oval fur approximately 80 single family lou. I believe that the information herein submitted is of sufficient detail so that your local officials can make a positive decision on our request for a Monticello Urbain Service Area Amendment. If you have any questions, or need additional information, please feel free to call me at 985-5000. Thaak you for your timely response to our request. Sincerely, / Neal Krzyrsniak, Presi 20141 leenlc Trull, Sable A laAevllle, HN 55011 (6,12) 985-5000 FAX: (611) 469-5906 MONTICELLO URBAN SERVICE AREA AMENDMENT 40 ACRES NW 1/4 of NW 1/4 SECTION 19 HIGHWAV 118 MONTICELLO TOWNSHIP OWNER: ART & DARLENE ANDERSON PETITIONER: BRIDGELAND DEVELOPMENT CO. 104 HISTORY OF BRIDGELAND DEVELOPMENT CO.: For the past ten years I have been involved in land development in the following cities: Lakeville, Apple Valley, Woodbury, and Eden Prairie. I am currently pursuing developing land in Lake Elmo, St. Bonifacius and of course, Monticello. Most of our developments have been single family, but there has been some multi -family and commercial. PROPERTY OWNER: Art and Darlene Anderson 8871 Jasor. Avenue Northeast Monticello, MN 55362 612-295-2605 PETITIONER: Neal Krzyuniak, President Bridgeland Development Co. 20141 Ieemc Trail, Suite B Lakeville, MN 55044 612-985-5000 Fax: 612.469-5906 SITE LOCATION: As shown on the following site map, the subject property contains approximately 40 acres and is located in the northwest quarter of Section 19, Township 121 North, Range 24 West, Monticello Township, Wright County, Minnesota. The property is located on the south side of County Road 118 (Jason Avenue), and is directly across the street from the recently constructed Oak Ridge and Briar Oakes Estate subdivisions. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The subject property is identified as PID # 213 000 19 22 00 and is legally described as follows: NW 1/4 of NW 1/4 Section 19, Township 121, Range 24, Wright County, Wanesota. LOCAL ACCESSIBILITY: The subject property has approximately 900 lineal feet of frontage on County Road 119 (Jason Avenue). This roadway is a two lane rural, all weather asphalt road. A Rill range of daily and weekly goods and services are available in Monticello'a Retail Trade Area. The city's commercial establishments, recreation area, educational facilities, and health services are located within a five minute drive of our property. METROPOLITAN ACCESSIBILITY: The City of Monticello is located approximately 19 miles (20 Minutes) ftom the intersection of Interstate Highways 94 and 494. The subject property is located in Wright County, but the community has tolldtee metropolitan telephone service. T /O i zs o J], .., ......_............. .... - 4 s . �C :':':::, s 7 ...... ............. 13 e .AUY!`AR1/Gr" : L TriE7+ .ndc e 9 SG En 51• NenOR YL ........................... .................... .. ...... _ p• q J ( O ce 4GZ y ,�< Jw• . .................... ... ..... ...... „ .::: :\ a . > v F e G �•,; 'TO 40Z W 17 7C :E.iSi 721 V W ... P[ndU7/ i:E. iiiE Et 5 f t; tier quo .........! i9,c'.9••IIB �}u7 n .y Toch • rJc LQ W -Z iii'.ii:i'.`ci C dEh j�7 r—gym �• �.� U/77 T 'cp-/W Cc�c1E�. � o�dao sn•' � io l�twNde7.Xye rlB '1 !. .f h4��s csr ot / B E'NTC boy/e rh° ... `�B �vn �VD,D7°q,N T4oc9sn7acroH. `9&4' yyon WALIS14 A3eDD1.S�J .'`,�1v�}•`'lv?` i` Chris !� Caro / LT cs y TiLryPh ILg � Y K•cE i -'�o.v • cZt QvQ C • 7,9. -V •..xhu/i B.i�J�G� R tc. t1 N d N e N �� .j 4Q V Q C e aF • _-. .. Ta • • a nfI" () L' nlC�� •� ,romo �C'O//5!1<, 7SUJrro yo\Q�S' yTF9C/0• .* y '.M ' . M'ual/n")W•T 1\H "(or Thoe<yrJ'/ YrncoI+ei ' q Jahn 4, Sondra 0- ! E, Qankof S2 j < C //pX .7? s c.+T s•De ;� -onao L 0 J, -r.+ .. s " so NoJ • m e - Walter_, u �` ES,wd9nsss 00 qa • :1� b«(L E �• .h'C N. [. B 7N •S7 N.F. •i: He/er7 �. � Federo / G{�d nk sy N N E�yyI M� 7B.(, h� cftefrt/zun'E Yo.e qu V.J 4Mn7yL. )2 Z 1) ndick Uaa News Clh, Ibror�y L. a I De H. t.C. c) N JN • i Joorc-j �e i C l Bru�e�. �� : o, r.• . /L C,. • J /45 • J t N u- 0 d ZaC man, V Vy y t7r /q Aldhorn!/anjon F rsrN� vr" rnnbe/ Ho%Fer J ;7 r, 3 j)eRn 417/ c • oo LOCATION AP A'n�CJTi oeq,N • sa zs$ /yo 97 (4 c`,'t PELICAN 1"2200• /on °:i '^ R!. )--r s' i N f' 1 Source. Lend Atlas and Plat Book • i t res I � of Wright Co., Minn. PEE CANS ` t. �„r //O `�r29t,-J:tK r�nr)(luer SITE DRAINAGE: The attached Topographic Map shows the existing surface drainage for this parcel. The map shows that the majority of the surface water currently drains northeast, to the existing wetland across Hwy. 118. A small portion of the site drains to the southeast. The proposed Preliminary Plat for this site will be designed to retain surface water on the site, with off-site stormwater discharged at less than the pre-existing rates. SOIL SUITABILITY FOR URBAN PURPOSES: The following Soil Map shows the existing soil types for this property. The area in white contains well -drained upland soils; and the shaded area indicates poorly drained hydric soils. The upland soils will provide excellent sites for residential home construction. The poorly drained hydric soils may have some limiting constraints for residential development and these area may be preserved as open space. Prior to detailed site planning and design of this parcel, detailed soil investigations and wetland delineations will be performed to identify all limiting soil constraints for the Property. SITE UTILITIES: The attached Monticello Urban Service Area Map shows the existing Writ of the Urban Service Area for this part of the city. This site is currently at the southern edge of the Urban Service Area. The 40 acre parcel could easily be served from the east by the existing city sanitary sewer and watermain in Oak Ridge Dr. in the Oak Ridge subdivision. As shown on the Topographic Map, the site surface drains towards the east. We are requesting that the Monticello Urban Service Area be extended to include this 40 acre parcel. /o L Q \ co r _N -�. a `i �ccc -�ITY OF M ELLO �. '•�a�. -�-_._ _� 959 Gra v '� 7C o p� r r ..�. MAP so N • _ _�- 1000' _ _ t _C Source: U.S.G.S. Map, b1onucdUo (�uadnangic . I lilvl' 11'9 o03 01.1�s srwoo stf%ct. co coum Council Agenda - 8/26/96 The City recently received a notice that the 1996 membership dues for the Economic Development Partnership of Wright County are now due. The notice indicated the City's membership dues for 1996 would amount to $1,004.50, the same as last year's; but it should be noted that an additional $500 was contributed by the Monticello IDC, mating the total City contribution $1,504.50. Mr. Darrin Lahr, Board member of the Economic Development Partnership, will be requesting City participation again in 1997. The City originally approved membership in the Development Partnership in December 1993 and paid the same membership fee of $1,500, out of which $500 was contributed by the IDC. The same was true in 1994, with the IDC contributing $500 and the City $1,004.50. Enclosed with your agenda is a copy of the 1995 paid member list showing the various communities and organizations that contributed to the Partnership. As you will note, I believe almost all Wright County cities have become members in the past, and 1 believe that most are continuing in 1996. The Economic Development Partnership recently met and prepared a live - year plan, which includes their goal of hiring a full-time executive director in the future. At the present membership fee rates, the Partnership would not be able to fund a full-time director and do other economic development activities unless they either raise the membership fees substantially, increase their membership numbers, or receive funding from the County Board. In the past, Wright County has not contributed any funds toward the Partnership but has recently agreed to contribute $30,000 to the Partnership for next year. Originally, when the City considered membership in this newly -formed Partnership, them were concerns that many of the activities proposed by the Partnership would bo duplications of efforts and programs that the City currently has. With the City having its own Economic Development Director, many of the programs being proposed by the county Pnrtnerohip already exist locally, including revolving loan programs, marketing efforts, and other consulting services we already provide. The basic reason for joining the Partnership originally was that, although we have our own economic development department, what's good for the county will ultimately be good Council Agenda • 8/26/96 for the city of Monticello in encouraging tax base increases throughout the county. I believe there were also concerns that the City of Monticello did not want to be labeled as the only community that did not belong to the county organization and thus felt obligated to participate even if we may not realize as many benefits from this organization as other smaller communities will. With the recent decision by the IDC to generally turn over their finances to the Chamber of Commerce, it appears unlikely that the IDC would have the funds or resources to continue contributing $600 toward the City's share of its membership fee. Although our invoice only shows a fee of $1,004.60, the Monticello IDC did get a separate statement for the additional $500 like they have contributed in the past. The question now becomes whether the City will want to make up the additional $500 that the IDC will no longer likely contribute or simply offer to pay the previous rate of $1,004.60. According to the Partnership fee schedule, the expected membership fee would be $1,600 from the City, and it would be up to the City to find other sourws of revenue if we didn't want to pay the entire amount. Motion to approve continued membership in the Economic Development Partnership of Wright County at an approximate annual coat of $1,600 based on the current dues structure for 1996. Under this alternate, the City would continue membership but also agree to pick up the additional $500 that the IDC contributed in the (� past. 2. Motion to approve membership contingent upon the City's contribution being the $1,004.60 as invoiced without picking up the IDC amount of $500. Under this alternative, the City would be essentially offering less than the Partnership fee structure indicates. Motion to deny continued membership in the Economic Development Partnership duo to the duplication of efforts already being accomplished through our own economic development program and due to the fact that larger cities are required to contribute a larger base amount than smaller communities which are likely to benefit more. Council Agenda - 8/26/96 C. STAFF F..O F.NDATION: While the staff believes that the programs being initiated by the Partnership are, without a doubt, duplicates of programs and activities we currently provide, we would hate to be the only community not participating in the Partnership for that reason. Based on the 1995 membership list, it appears that most communities are still members of the Partnership, and we are not aware of any that are not planning on renewing in 1996. If the Partnership's goals can provide assistance and attract new industries to Wright County, Monticello certainly stands to benefit as one of the top locations for new businesses to consider. Although it appears the membership fees do seem to be unequal in their application with larger communities being asked to contribute more than the smaller communities do on a per capita basis, it's hard for the staff to recommend not participating in this organization for 1996. It is also assumed that if the Partnership had realized that the IDC was technically disbanding its financial organization, the City would have probably received an invoice for the total estimated fee of $1,504.50. As a result, it is assumed that if the City is going to continue membership, you will be supporting alternative #1. n. SIIPPORTING DATA: last of 1995 membership; Five-year plan of the Partnership; Membership dues invoice. MEMORANDUM TO: 011ie Koropchak Monticello I.D.CC.. FROM: Phyllis Cokley( �j City of Otsego DATE: July 25. 1996 SUBJECT: Economic Development Partnership 1995 Paid Member List My review of the Partnership's bank deposit slips showed the following members paid dues in 1995. Northern States Power 52,300.00 Rockford State Bank 250.00 Lakedale Telephone 1,850.00 City of South Haven 119.40 City of Otsego 50.00 City of Howard Lake 500.00 City of Clearwater 159.70 Clearwater EDA 50.00 Citizens Bank of Waverly 250.00 Monticello Development ( z 0t) 500.00 City of Monticello 1.004.50 City of Maple Lake 500.00 Clearwater Township 215.00 City of Albertville 500.00 City of Buffalo 1,685.50 City of Rockford 76650 City of Annandale 500.00 Minnegasco 2,313.00 City of Hanover 178.60 Woodland Township 210.00 Frankfort Township 39350 Security State Bank 500.00 City of Cokato 500.00 City of Montrose 500.00 Wright Hennepin Electric 2.300.00 The Partner I FROM THE CHAIRMAN An Exciting Year 6y Nall D. Mr•haW, 0mirirw. EDPWC During the first quarter of 1998, the Economic Development Partner- ship of Wright County has been busy on sev- eral different Initiatives. The board of directors has been focusing on a number of key strate. gies and planning is- sues for the year. One hurdle cleared early on was the establishing of an office in Monticello. The Partner- ship continues to concentrate on outreach to the com- munities In Wright County by prcwcing valuable as- sistance. A note of thanks goes out to pas; C❑ector Garrimm Hale from the City of Albertville for his dedicated Ser. vice and guidance in the Pennersnip s formation In 1993. We also wish to welcome new Cirectors Phyllis Cokety, representing the City of Otsego, Seen Carroll, representing AT&T, anc Tim Zipoy, repre- senting the Private Industry Courul, Annandale. Ali of our board members are volunteers and contribute from a wide variety of interests ano backgrounds. Each brings with them epOcial trs�grt and resources to shape our board with a Collabcrat,vo v Sion to gukle the growth of Wright County The Partnership's mission ccr; %os to promote Wright County as a dosrrabio p!, -17o t: live, work, or own a business. Our emphasis will focus on supporting economic development on a county -wide basis to enhance and Improve the quality of fife. In early February, our Executive Committee held an intensive goal setting and strategic pianning ses- sion to outline major ob{ectives for 1996. Those objectives include: • Establish Finance, Marketing, Management, and Government Liaison Action Teams • Initiate couttt cle community profiles • Establish regular outreach efforts to all communities • Revolving Loan Program administered by Central Minnesota Initiative Fund • Conduct a county -wide business evanslw retention survey • Retain all existing members and grow membership base by adding new businesses, banks, etc. • Strengthen relationship with Ouad Courtly Network • Seek financial support of the Partnership from Wright County Board • Continue to provide new resources to Partnership members • Produce a regular Newsletter for miambetship distribution If you have any questions about the Partnership and he sorvicoa, please call 271.3169 or my office at 477.3078. NEWS Welcome New Board Member From AT&T AT&T, the nation's largest telecommunications pro- vider, has joined the Wright County Economic De- velopment Partnership by filling a board seat that was recently vacated. AT&T has a long-term corn mitment to enhancing the quality of lite in the eom- munities in which its employees live and work. With 102 locations in Minnesota, AT&T Is not only part of the community, but has Invested millions of dollars In call switching centers and communication equipment across the state. That finestmem is harte- tating Into new employment opportunities for Min- nesotans. Sean Carroll, AT&T Sales Manager, said his com- mitment to Wright County fits his company's mis- sion to create *Wrderiess' cornmunitles so no mat- ter how rural or how urban the area Is, economic development can flourish. Carroll also cited the Partnership's interest in technology, the Internet and specifically electronic commerce as evidence of the organization's real economic development leader- ship polentiel. Partnership Utilizes CMIF Initiative Fund Invests In Wright County By Kathy aeate* EnMM" arocor. CMIF The Central Minnesota INhative Fund Is pleased to be a partner with Wright County in promoting com- munity and oeonomie development. Tne Initiative Fund is a regional foundation, bosod in Lento Falls, that focusos on strengthening communitios, faml- hos, and tho labor force. The Fund provudos loans to businossoo, grants to non-proflta, and loodorship training to community loadon3. Over $16 million has been distributee in the 14 county region by the Inbative Fund since it began nearly a decade ago, Including over $600,000 In Wright County. For example, the cities of Albertville and Waverly are currently participating In the Fund's Community Partnership grants and training program, focusing on community visioning and planning. A number of businesses have reeeNed assistance from the Fund, Includng VonRuden Manufacturing in Buf- falo, and Standard Iron In Monticello. . The Initiative Fund believes that local people are the best resource for identifying and addressing corn- munity needs. The Fund's investments in the re- gion would not be nearly as effective without conn milted local leaders woddng to link needs and re- sources. A g real example of this leadership is Judie Rose, Wright County Commissioner, who serves on the Initiative Fwd's Board of Directors. She pro- vides an important connection between the Wright County area and our foundation. For more inforrrta- bon about the Fund, call (320) 632.9255. Partnership Participates in Summit The Panners* was well represented at the QUAD COUNTY SUMMIT which was held April 291h. County Commissioners from Benton, Sherburne, Steams and Wright counties called the summit to discuss cooperation and regional needs. The Part- nership made presentation to the board members on the status of development In Wright County and related growth Issues. The PartnemV is one of four economic develop- ment organizations that paNdpated In the suffvNL All four ar© members of lite Cuad County Networit, which mcota rcgularty to cnswo ccoMmilon and communication between the coundca. ;l1c", Economic Development Partnership 2807 W County Road 75 of Wright County, Inc. Monticelto,MN 55362 Phone • (612)271-5166 A non-profit private/public partnership FAX • (612) 295-1421 Date: June 18, 1996 To: Economic Development Partnership From: Finance Committee Be: Five Year Plan The Finance Committee, consisting of Arnie Hendrickson, Phyllis Cokley and Susan Vergin, met on Friday, June 14, 1996. During that meeting the committee came up with a five year plan, actually 4 1/2 years extending to the year 2000 (Exhibit A), and a wage scale (Exhibit B) for the Executive Director position. The following is a synopsis of the finance committee's recommendations: For the remainder of 1996 the Executive Director should be hired as a full time employee. This position should he at a wage of $12.00 per hour. The person in this position would be a probationary employee until January of 1997, at which time a review would be done and a determination would be made whether or not to make that person a permanent employee. After that determination has been made the recommended wage scale would become effective along with an insurance package. The employee holding that position would be reviewed annually thereafter, unless the person in that position changes, at which time there would always be a six month probationary period followed by a review process. It is recommended that a personnel policy be implemented. • It has been recommended, through the five year plan, that the Executive Director receive a retirement plan in the year 1998. • It is recommended that a part time clerical position be established in the year 1998. • It is felt that a permanent office site be established and maintained for the Partnership. One that would house staff and be accessible to the public. This is scheduled to also take place during 1998. • The Five Year Plan has been drafted beginning with July 1, 1996 and goes through the year 2000. This plan identifies expenses that the Partnership can anticipate over the next years to keep operating and providing the services which it was established to provide. The Finance Committee feels that without the participation and support of the Wright County Board that the Partnership will not be able to continue past the year 1997. The dues structure will need to be reviewed on an annual basin, and we need to be very aggressive in pursuing members Into the Partnership. iii EXHIBIT A ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP OF WRIGHT ODUNTY, INC. FIVE YEAR PLAN DESCRIp1ION I9gg a 1997 --LU_ x+99 -IQQCL- Executive Director f 12,000 30 ,000 32,400 35,000 37,800 Payroll Withholdings 920 2 ,295 2,480 2,680 2,895 Insurance Package 0 2,400 2,475 2,550 2,625 Retirement Plan 0 0 11000 1,100 1,200 Vehicle Allowance u 930 1,850 1,920 1,980 2,040 Clerical Wages as 0 0 4,160 8,840 9,360 Payroll Withholdings 0 0 320 680 720 Office Space 0 0 3,000 6,600 7,200 Office Furnishings 0 0 3,500 0 0 Computer 0 3,000 3,000 0 0 Photo Copier 0 0 1,200 1,200 1,200 Pager/Cellular Phone 0 0 1,200 1,200 1,200 Postage 500 1,000 11100 1,200 1,500 Printing 500 1,200 1,300 1,500 2,000 Filing Fees 500 25 25 25 25 Dues/Nesbermhips 0 500 550 600 650 Meeting Expenses 400 800 850 11000 1,200 Seminars/Conferences 200 750 800 11000 1,200 Miscellaneous 0 180 220 345 385 a 1998 in a oix month prejeoted budget. July let - December 31st, all other years run January lit through December 31st. is Vehicle Allowance is based on the allowance allowed by the IRS, which currently is at 31 cents per mile, an inflation factor has been used. ass Clerical Wates are as follows: 1998 - 10 hr•/weak 1 88/hr; 1999 - 20 hrs/week 1 $8.50/hr; and 2000 - 20 hrm/reek 1 69/hr. 1(6- r, EXHIBIT B ECONOMIC DEVEL40PNM PARTNERSHIP OF WRIGHT COUNTY, INC. MAGE SCALE - EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Effective January 1, 1997 Salary Range $30,000 to $42,500 annually s This is a ten (10) step scale, with increases in increments of approximately 4 percent. Sten l $30,000 Step 2 $31,200 Sten 3 $32,400 Sten 4 $33,700 Step 5 $35,000 Sten 8 $38,400 Sten 7 $37,800 Sten 8 $39,300 Sten 9 $40,900 Sten 10 $42,500 Steps are only guidelines. This compensation plan is not a seniority plan calling for automatic pay increases based on length of service, but upon meeting the criteria established by the job description. The Board of Directors will approve all increases based on a recommendation from either the Finance Committee and/or the Management Committee. IIF Economic Development Partnership 2807 W County RoW , 5 of Wright County, Inc. Monticello, MN 55362 Phone • (612) 271-5166 A non-profit privatelpublic partnership FAX • (612) 295-1321 V City of Monticello Ann: Rick Wolfsteller 250 E. Broadway P.O. Box 1147 Monticello. Mn. 55362 CITY OF MONTICELLO MEMBERSHIP DUES FOR 1996 - S1,004.50 PLEASE MAKE PAYABLE TO: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP REMIT TO: SUSAN VERGIN, TREASURER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP P. O. BOX 278, HANOVER, MN 55341 The following dues structure has been approved by the board of the Partnership: Entity Dues Wright County Municipalities - Under 1000 1000.2500 2500 - S000 Over 5000 Townships Utility Companies Telecommunication Providers Banks & Lending Institutions Honorary Members (Non- Voting - Receives mailings only) Associate (Includes non -business, non-profit, schools and civic organizations) Business - Ito 4 Employees 5 to 10 Employees I I to 20 Employees 21 or More S 10 cents per capita S 100.00 plus 10 cents per capita S 500.00 S 500.00 plus 10 cents per capita S1000.00plus 10 cents per capita S 100.00 plus 10 cents per capita S1000.00 plus 10 cents per capita S10010.00 $ 250.00 (Deposits up to $25 Million) S 500.00 (Deposits of $25 M to $50 M) S 750.00 (Deposits of $50 M to $75 M) $ 1000.00 (Deposits over $75 M) $ 25.00 30.00 $ 75.00 S 100A) S 150.00 S 200.00 Number of employees includes active owners and management and pertains to regular employees (over 20 hours per week). Part-time employees of 20 hours or less to be counted as 1/2 employees. Per capita rates are to be based on the 1990 census for governmental units. If you have any questions concerning your dues, they may be directed to Sue Vergin. Treasurer. at (612) 497-3777. If you have already paid your dues, pleasa disregard. DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RECEIPT THANK YOU Council Agenda - 8/26/96 At a recent Police Advisory Commission meeting, commission members discussed with Sheriffs Department Chief Deputy, Don Lindell, the current 24-hour-aday coverage and how this amount of coverage was working out for the department in providing adequate protection. Mr. Lindell noted that the increase in coverage to 24 hours a day started in 1993, brought about in part by the increasing population and the number of calls for service that were occurring. At that time, it was felt the increase in the hours was warranted to the level we currently have, and the commission members again reviewed with Mr. Lindell whether it was time to consider additional hours of coverage to accommodate the larger population and larger city limits that now need to be covered. In the last three years, statistical information prepared by the Sheriffs Department indicates that calls for service have increased approximately 16'%, which corresponds to the increase in population, which amounts to about 14'% in the last three years. Mr. Lindell felt the City should consider looking at, increasing the hours of coverage above the present 9,176 hours annually by considering an additional 200.400 hours per year that could be used by the Sheriffs Department at their discretion when they feel it's warranted, By not tieing the additional hours to a set time, the Sheriffs Department would have flexibility to utilize these hours when necessary. At the proposed 1997 contract rate of $34.60 per hour, an additional 200 hours of coverage would amount to $6,900 or approximately a 2% increase in our contract fee. By increasing the hours to 400 annually, the contract increase would be $13,800 more, or $330,372 annually. Commission members generally agreed that the City Council should consider gradually increasing the hours of coverage in relation to our population growth to enable the deputies to keep up with the calls for service and still provide adequate overall coverage for the citizens. 1. In preparation for the 1997 budget, Council could authorize the staff to prepare the police department budget to include on additional 400 hours of coverage amounting to $13,800. Council Agenda - 8/26/96 Council could approve increasing the contract by 200 hours annually, or $6,900 starting in 1997. IT u 411 h. 0(. (Aa.- �lo��tl Ant •NaaO Council could approve increasing the amount of coverage by some other annual amount. Do not adjust the hours of coverage at this time and leave it at 9,176 hours annually. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of the Police Commission members that the City Council support increasing the police contract coverage between 200 and 400 hours annually to keep pace with the calls for service and the population growth. This recommendation is based on the theory that the City should try to provide a level of service that does not deteriorate because the calls for servioe become excessive and response times are delayed. It is recommended by the commission members that smaller increases in the number of hours is preferable to waiting until a full shift is needed. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of Police Commission minutes of 7/24196; Statistical data from Sheriffs Department. Q-1