City Council Agenda Packet 10-13-19970
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, October 13,1997 - 7 p.m.
Mayor: Bill Fair
Council Members: Clint Herbst, Brian Stumpf, Roger Carlson, Bruce Thie)en
1. Call to order.
2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held September 22, and the
special meeting held September 29, 1997.
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
4. Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints.
5. Consent agenda.
A. Consideration of Change Order No. 7 for City Project No. 93-14C,
Expansion of the Monticello Wastewater Treatment Plant Facility.
B. Consideration ora conditional use permit to allow 1) the establishment
of an autobody repair shop and accessory outdoor storage area within a
B•31highway business) zoning district; and 2) a planned unit
development conditional use permit (PUD/CUP) to allow shared use of
an outdoor storage area (with adjacent autobody shop). Applicant,
John Johnson.
C. Consideration of: 1) a conditional use permit to allow open/outdoor
storage, sale and service and automobile (recreational vehicle) repair
within a B-3 zoning district; and 2) a variance from the minimum 5-11
setback imposed upon parking areas and associated with commercial
uses. Applicant, Bruce Medlock and Michael Galante on behalf of
Monticello RV Center, Inc.
D. Consideration of: 1) a zoning ordinance map amendment changing the
,JJ§' district designation from AO, Agricultural Open Space, to B-3,
r�N • t (highway business); 2) a planned unit development conditional use
Jd' permit to allow outdoor sales, outdoor storage, and automotive body
�4 repair in a H-3 zoning district; and 31 n variance from the City's off -
street parking curbing requirements. Applicant, Gould Brothers
Chevrolet.
Agenda
Monticello City Council
October 13, 1997
Page 2
E. Consideration of an applicatiun for rezoning from I-2 to planned unit
development district to allow mixed uses on a combination of parcels,
variance from the setback requirements for a loading dock, PUD
permit to allow construction of a loading dock, and phasing of other
required improvements to a nonconforming building. Applicant, .teff
B,irns/Little Mountain Feed.
R Consideration of text and map amendments renaming BC (business
campus) zoning district to I -IA (light industrial district A); and
consideration of text amendments to the business campus district
regulations by eliminating the green space requirement outside of the
standard setback requirements. Applicant, Monticello Planning
Commission.
G. Consideration of purchasing RV Center property.
6. Consideration of items removed from the consent agenda for discussion.
7. Consideration of an application for rezoning from R-1 (single family) to R-2
(single and two family residential) to permit the development of a 14 -unit
townhouse project under a planned unit development. Applicant, Monticello
Country Club.
8. Consideration of purchasing internet web site services.
9. Consideration of an offer to purchase vacant parcel adjacent to post office.
10. Consideration of reviewing Police Commission traffic control
recommendation for School Boulevard.
11. Consideration of snow removal from selected portions of the pathway system.
12. Consideration of additional brush pickup at curbside from July 1 storm.
13. Consideration of new water rate stricture.
14. Consideration of request for funding assistance by Chamber of Commerce.
15. Presentation by Al Deruyter relating to proposed landfill expansion plans by
Superior Services.
16. Approval of bills for the first half of October, 1997.
17. Adjournment.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, September 22, 1997 - 7 p.m.
Members Present: Bill Fair, Clint Herbst, Brian Stumpf, Roger Carlson, Bruce
Thielen
Members Absent: None
.. . . .. . . in �I • . • .. If. —
A MOTION WAS MADE. BY BRIAN STUMPF AND SECONDED BY CLINT
HERBST TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HEI.D
SEPTEMBER 8, 1997, AS WRITTEN. Motion carried unanimously.
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
A. It was requested by staff that designation of a representative
authorized to execute disaster assistance applications be added to the
consent agenda.
4. Citizens . mens i io s. requests andcomplaints.
None.
5. Consentarenda.
A. C
Gould Estate. Recommendation: Authorize the Mayor and City
Administrator to execute a quit claim deed clarifying the boundary line
of the City parking lot parcel and the boundary line of the Georgia
Gould estate parcel.
B. Consideration of approval of final platdevelopment agreement, and
dis h .re went aLrreem n ••H.v r Mill Second Addition.
Recommendation: Approve the final plat, development agreement,
and disbursement agreement contingent on development of approved
engineering plans and specifications.
C. Co aid r.tionofp .r hose of I86 efin r it r -mo .nt d air compressor.
Recommendation: Award the purchase of a Sullair air compressor
to RDO Equipment at a price of $10,329 plus tax based on the superior
warranty of two years on the engine and five years on the compressor.
Page 12�
Council Minuteq - 9/22/97
D. Consideration ofpurchase of equipment trailer for street and parks
department. Recommendation: Authorize purchase of the
Towmaster Q-16 equipment trailer from St. Joseph's Equipment, Inc.
in the amount of $6,304.80.
Consideration of approval of wetland mitigation plan for CArdinal
Pond subdivision. Applicant, John LeprRsen. Recommendation:
Accept the wetland mitigation plan for the Cardinal Pond subdivision
as presented.
Consideration of resolution desiLmating a representative authorized t�
P4PPUte disaster asCls anco apple a inns on behalf of the Ci v.
Recommendation: Adopt a resolution authorizing the City
Administrator to execute disaster assistance applications on behalf of
the City for the July 1, 1997, storm. SEE RESOLUTION 97-48.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRUCE THIELEN AND SECONDED BY ROGER
CARLSON TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS RECOMMENDED. Motion
carried unanimously.
None.
Considera i in of amendment to the comprehensive plan for tl
Monticello goo r Ily nflecting the Downtown/Riyerfront Distt
Applicant Monticello Housine and Redevelopment Authwdty
Assistant Administrator Jeff O'Neill reported that in 19% the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority took steps to implement the comprehensive plan by
funding a major downtown/riverfront redevelopment study. The study
utilized the MCP for public input and a consulting planner. On September 2,
1997, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and
recommended adoption of the plan as an amendment to the City's
comprehensive guide plan. O'Neill noted that the implementation process
has already begun in that the Planning Commission is in the process of
updating the zoning district boundaries and sign and building design
standards, the HRA has been working with developers and property owners
to redevelop the riverfront and has established a TIF redevelopment district,
and the EDA hits developed a funding program and guidelines for building
facades improvements. In addition, the Parks Commission has been working
with the MC P design committee on upgrading West Bridge Park.
Mayor Fair noted that he was enthused about the plan and considered it to
be an investment in the community; however, implementing the plan will
require a commitment from the community, elected officials, and taxpayers.
Page 'l
Council Minutes - 9/22/97
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRUCE THIELEN AND
SECONDED BY ROGER CARLSON TO ADOPT THE DOWNTOWN/
RIVERFRONT AREA PLAN AS AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN BASED ON THE FINDING THAT THE AMENDMENT IS CONSISTENT
WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Motion carried unanimously
Assistant AdministrP.tor Jeff O'Neill reported that the task force established
to study development of a National Guard Training and Community Center
completed the initial phase of its work and recommended that the City
Council support a letter of intent to the National Guard indicating the goal of
beginning facility construction in 1998 with occupancy by September 1999.
The site proposed for the facility is a 7 -acre site in the area of Walnut and
5th Streets, which corresponds with the HRA/MCP plan for the Walnut
Street connection of downtown and the mall.
The training and community center as proposed would include the following
uses:
National Qlarri Offices: (4,000 sq ft)
The building must be designed to allow expansion to 8,000 sq ft.
Additional outside storage in the amount of 15,000 sq ft must be
available within 2 miles of the site.
Alternative Learning Center: (4,000 sq ft)
This use assumes that sufficient revenue can be derived from the ALC
program to pay for the cost to provide the space and support operation
costa.
City Offices: (9,000 sq ft)
This portion of the facility would be in lieu of purchasing the
Marquette Bank building since this portion of the project could satisfy
the city office needs at no greater cost than the bank building
purchase.
Senior Conter: (4,600 sq ft including private lunch room)
Because the senior population is the second fastest growing group in
the city, the current facility would only he sufficient to satisfy short-
term needs.
Recreation Services/Youth CenterfYMCA Offices: (4,900 aq ft)
The precise manner in which this space would he used was not defined
at this time; however, the task force felt it was important to include
Page 3 9
Council Minutes - 9/22/97
space for youth activities with actual programming to follow. Also
included in the proposal is a "wheel park" which would consist of a
paved surface and ramps for use by rollerbladers and skateboarders.
Joint Use Spacc : (23,970 sq ft)
This space would include a kitchen, gymnasium, two meeting rooms, a
large meeting room/council chambers/corporate training area, media
room, lockers, restrooms, and lobby.
Aquatic n er and Ice Sheet:
The task force stressed in their recommendation that both the aquatic
center and ice sheet should be incorporated into current site planning
activities; however, they were not included in the cost of the core
facility, as the timing of construction and associated financing must be
staged and structured in a manner that makes them affordable.
The total cost of the core facility without water and ice was estimated at
$6,033,000, which includes $1,000,000 for land acquisition/relocation costs
and $4,813,000 for building and site improvements. Of the $4,813,000, the
National Guard's share of the cost is $1.5 million, with the School District
paying $450,000, which leaves the City's share at $2,862,000. O'Neill noted
that the task force proposed utilization of lease revenue bonds plus other City
sources for financing the City's share of the facility, which would not require
a referendum.
Rusty Fifield of Ehlers and Associates noted that the community center
financing was still in the preliminary stages; however, it was estimated that
the total bond issue required for the project would be $3,950,000, which was
illustrated utilizing either lease revenue bonds or general obligation bonds.
Additional financing tools were also being evaluated to reduce finance and
interest expenses.
Councilmember Clint Herbst noted that he was in favor of Ae idea and the
location of the facility; however, he felt it was important to research the cost
and financing for the project prior to making a commitment to the National
Guard. In addition, he noted that he would be opposed to financing an
aquatic center or ice sheet without a referendum.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill noted that the task force will be meeting on
October 7 to review the proposal.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE. BY BRUCE TI1IELEN AND
SECONDED BY ROGER CARLSON TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE
FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION BY THE TASK FORCE AND TO SEND A
LETTER OF INTENT TO THE NATIONAL GUARD ACCORDINGLY:
Page 4 9
Council Minutes - 9/22/97
1. THE CITY WILL STRIVE TO BEGIN CONSTRUCTION OF A CORE
FACILITY IN 1998, WHICH WILL GENERALLY INCLUDE
NATIONAL GUARD OFFICES, ALTERNATIVE LEARNING CENTER
SPACE, CITY OFFICES, SENIOR CENTER, RECREATION
SERVICES/YOUTH CENTER/YMCA OFFICES, AND JOINT USE
SPACE.
2. THE METHOD OF FUNDING THE FACILITY WILL INCLUDE $1.5
MILLION FROM THE NATIONAL GUARD. THE BALANCE WILL
BE FUNDED THROUGH A COMBINATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICT
FUNDS (ALC), LEASE REVENUE BONDS, AND OTHER CITY
FUNDING SOURCES TO BE DETERMINED. THIS FINANCING
METHOD WILL NOT REQUIRE A REFERENDUM.
3. THE GENERAL LOCATION OF THE FACILITY WILL BE BOUNDED
BY MAPLE STREET ON THE WEST, WALNUT STREET ON THE
EAST, RAILROAD TRACKS ON THE NORTH, AND 6TH STREET ON
THE SOUTH. BEGIN NEGOTIATIONS WITH PROPERTY OWNERS
ON PURCHASE OF THE SITE.
4. THE AQUATIC CENTER AND ICE SHEET ARE IMPORTANT
PORTIONS OF THE PROJECT. TIMING OF CONSTRUCTION AND
FINANCING OF THESE FEATURES ARE UNDER STUDY.
5. BEGIN THE PROCESS OF SELECTION OF AN ARCHITECT.
6. THE SITE WILL BE DESIGNED TO ALLOW ADEQUATE SPACE
FOR EXPANSION AS NEEDED BY THE NATIONAL GUARD.
Motion carried unanimously. SEE RESOLUTION 97-49.
Cnnsideration of reviewing terms of purchase of MnrQuette B nk h uil inv for
use as city hall.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRLAN STUMPF AND SECONDED BY BRUCE
THIELEN TO DIRECT THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO DISCONTINUE
FURTHER NEGOTIATIONS AT THIS TIME FOR THE PURCHASE. OF THE
MARQUETTE BANK BUILDING PENDING THE OUTCOME OF ADDING A NEW
CITY HALL TO THE COMMUNITY CENTER COMPLEX. Motion carried
unanimously.
!1 .T. .W a 11M MrsM.T...Tim I- -11 . M
Assistant Administrator Jeff O'Neill reported that the Parks Commission
requested authorization to spend budgeted funds for the purpose of
development of n comprehensive pork plan, which would he presented for
adoption as an amendment to tho comprehensive plan in the spring of 1998.
The following items were proposed to be addressed in the plan:
Page 5 0
Council Minutes - 9/22/97
1. City-wide or regional ballfields.
2. Park dedication for commercial and industrial developments
and modifications to the residential development requirements.
3. Future park areas and pathway connections.
4. Park and recreation service programming.
5. Capital funding.
6. Park maintenance priorities.
7. Neighborhood park design and location.
8. Other planning issues identified in the Planner's scope of
services report.
Councilmember Clint Herbst questioned whether many of the items could be
completed in-house rather than through a consultant. Parks Commissioner
Larry Nolan noted that the Parks Commission deals with short-term issues,
but a long-range plan for the community should he completed to guide the
Parks Commission.
Councilmember Herbst requested that the Parks Commission review all of
the vacant park land and make a recommendation as to which areas were not
suitable for park development.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRUCE THIELEN AND
SECONDED 13Y ROGER CARLSON TO AUTHORIZE COMPLETION OF A
COMPREHENSIVE PARK PLAN ATA COST NOT TO EXCEED $9,440. Motion
carried unanimously.
11. Update on req ,es s by 'Township land owners to become Fart of the city.
Assistant Administrator Jeff O'Neill reported that no response has been
prepared to the Township letter received two weeks ago; however, the
petitions for annexation were forwarded to the Minnesota Municipal Board
for consideration.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STUMPF AND SECONDED BY ROGER
CA17ISON TO APPROVE THE BILIS FOR THE LAST HALF OF SEPTEMBER AS
PRESENTED. Motion carried unanimously.
Page 6 0
Council Minutes - 9/22/97
I.W.
• •' 1 1 1 • 1r-TrIZZOVIT M.
In his report, City Administrator Rick Wolfsteller noted that as part of
the City's civil defense training exercise program relating to the NSP
Dower plant. the Mayor becomes the chief spokesman for the City
Council and is dispatched to the state emergency office at the State
Capitol for the training exercises. In addition, one other Council
member has usually been involved in the training exercise by
attending the exercise at the emergency operations center at the
courthouse in Buffalo. This individual acts as the local public
information officer and provides updates or receives updates from the
Mayor at the State Capitol. The next FEMA/NSP exercise is scheduled
for Wednesday, October B, 1997.
After discussion, Mayor Fair volunteered to serve as the local city
media representative.
• • : • • : • : >17SfR7_T>< .: •: IlT!?TTIa151T.T.1!
Public Works Director John Simola reported that Duffy and Merrill
Busch requested that the City schedule additional brush pickups to
help property owners' continued efforts to clean up the damage from
the July I storm. Simola noted that emergency items were taken care
of by August 1; however, many areas still need to be cleaned up such
as the wastewater treatment plant, Riverside Cemetery, Otter Creek
Park, various boulevards, and the nursing home area. With the cost of
a single crew estimated at $2,000 per day, the cleanup of many areas
could cost up to $20,000 each. It was suggested that two Council
members volunteer to attend committee meetings to discuss continued
cleanup in the city.
Councilmembers Bruce Thielen and Clint Herbst volunteered to serve
on the storm cleanup committee.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROGER CARI.SON AND SECONDED BY BRUCE THIELEN
TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. Motion carried unanimously.
Karen Doty
Office Manager
Page 7
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, September 29, 1997 - 7 p.m.
City Council Present: Bill Fair, Clint Herbst, Brian Stumpf, Roger Carlson,
Bruce Thielen
Planning Commission
Present: Rud Dragsien, Dick Frie, Richard Carlson
HRA Present: Brad Barger, Steve Andrews, Dan Frie, Bill Murray,
Darrin Lahr
IDC Present: Bill Tapper, Tom 011ig, Tom Lindquist
A special meeting of the City Council was held for the purpose of discussing the
status of industrial development in Monticello.
IDC member Bill Tapper reported that, after studying the current status of
industrial development in Monticello, the IDC marketing committee concluded that
the City should take the lead in development of additional industrial land and
create a marketing plan. It was their view that the taxes received from the NSP
plant have established a standard of living for Monticello that could be difficult to
maintain in the future as NSP's portion of the tax revenue decreases.
The group discussed the benefits of industrial development, and Bill Tapper noted
that industrial taxes are three times greater than residential, while industries
require less city services than residential developments. In addition, he estimated
that there is a $7 return for every $1 invested in industrial development.
A video explaining the success and development methods of Anoka's Enterprise
Park was shown, after which Monticello's financial assistance programs were
discussed and uanpared to the incentives uffered by Anoka. Bill Tapper suggested
that in order to entice industry to Monticello, the business campus district
regulations should be oriented more toward industry than commercial, program
flexibility should be maximized to work with industries to the fullest extent
possible, and the City needs to be recognized as a business -friendly city. It was
noted that once the City decides the direction it will take regarding industrial
growth, a marketing plan must be developed to let people know what Monticello
has to offer.
At the conclusion of the discussion, the IDC made the following recommendations to
the City Council:
Page I
Special Council Meeting - 9/29/97
1. Rezone the business campus districts to 1-1 with the agreement to
revise the freeway building sight covenants to parallel BC building
standards.
2. The City Council adopt a resolution that mandates City staff adopt an
industrydriendly attitude and find creative ways to help industry
locate and expand in Monticello.
3. The City Council immediately begin the study of a city -owned
industrial park adjacent and west of on Highway 25.
4. The workshop attendees tour the Anoka Enterprise Park.
There being no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned.
Karen Doty
Office Manager
Page 2 0
Council Agenda - 10/13/97
5A, Consideration of Chisinge Order No- 7 for City EMiect No- 93-14C-
Eznangion of the Monticello Wastewater T atm nt Facility. (J.S. )
A. REFFHFNCF AND BACKGROUND:
Change Order No. 7 for the wastewater treatment plant project involved 13
changes and/or additions to the project. One of the additions, Change
Proposal F.equest No. 55, was the most significant portion of this change
order and involved time and materials work to correct foundation problems
associated with building the new Class A sludge building over the top of the
remaining portions of a 1960 sludge digester tank. The cost of this work was
$32,468.
The following is a list of the change proposal requests (CPR's) and associated
costs:
CPR ill Change sludge now meter from 10" to 6.. .................. $1491►
CPR 112 Revise sludge piping at headworks for future SBR tank #4 .... $4,438
CPR 114 Natural gas in admin building ........................... VOID
CPR 128 Aluminum conduit in some areas of headworks ............. $7,119
CPR 136 Equipment curbs on headworks roof (supplied with equipment in lieu of
concrete) ..........................................$(2.062)
CPR #38 Piping changes ........................................ VOID
CPR 140 Admin big. cabinet changes due to refrigerntor/incubator sizes ... $401
CPR 146 Painting/waterproofing.................................. VOID
i
CPR 180 Headworks stairway block walls - extended to ceiling ........ $1.734
CPR 181 Headworks ventilation system changes .................. $(2.073)
CPR 183 liendworks thermostat ........................... ..... VOID
CPR 184 Change pressure transmitter to pressure switch at blowers ..... $388
CPR 155 Soil correction for Class A sludge building ................ $32.468
CPR 157 Insulate cores of precast plank on headworks .............. $1.073
CPR 161 Duct work hangers in admin building .................... $(2.594)
I
Council Agenda - 10/13/97
CPR #64 Manual valve on sludge semi -trailer ........................ $250
CPR •65 Eliminate drinking fountain in headworks ................. $(668)
The total cost for the above 13 change proposals listed for Change Order
No. 7 is $39,982. This brings the total additions to the wastewater treatment
plant contract for Change Orders 1 thru 7 to $73.827. As of this date, no
additional days have been added to the contract time period.
$_ ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative is to approve Change Order No. 7 as outlined
above for a total of $39,982.
2. The second alternative would be not to approve Change Order No. 7.
V. STAFF RFrOMMFNDATION:
It is the recommendation of the City Administrator, Public Works Director,
and Project Engineer Bob Peplin, HDR, that the City Council approve
Change Order No. 7 as outlined in alternative q1.
Vt
Copy of Change Order No. 7.
P
OCT 1,010 197 110=54 FR HDR EtGItEERItG INC 612 591 5413 TO 92713272 P.02/02
L� � Change Order No. T
Name. Wastewater Tresirnern Plant fylpwdon
NOR Reject No.: 081244)04.184
Owner: City of Monticello, MN
Owwer's Project fele.: 93-14C
Das M, fes: j0(jQA7
AOWrsa1 and f iar70n
68M of COrWeci: 121)0/80
"Contractor:
:ontrsct Ponied:12./IS/N-10115(98
n is agro 'to erodtfy the Contraot retorted to she as
fogows:
tem No. nein ono Description of Changes
Contract Pmts
Contract Ttms
Donee", t"a8e50
DaaeaBe
M—Crre
1 CPR NO. 11
6481 0
O dM
O dM
CPR No. 12
0 •4,435
0 acv.
0 acv.
3 CPR NO. 14
VOID VOID
VOID
VOID
4 LPA No. 15
0 67,119
0 days
O days
6 ?A No. 36
42,062 0
0 doff.
0 &Y.
6 CPR No. 22
VOID VgtD
vein
VOID
7 CPR No. 40
0 1401
Stere
Opts
a CPR No. 46
VOID VOID
VOID
VOID
9 CPR No. 50
0 $1,734
0 days
0 days
10 CPR No. 61
12,077 0
O""
Odeye
I1 CPR No. 93
V010 VOID
VOID
VOID
12 Cf>t1 No. 84
0 638B
0 days
O dovB
13 CPR No. 55
0 032`488
0 days
O days
14 CPR No. 57
0 61.077
O dove
O ds"
19 _ Ido. Al
62,594 0sdhvA
0don
to CPR No. 64
0 0250
O 4aW
O Eqe
17 CPR No. 65
6898 0
0 dans
O diets
GutMTotel 67.886 0471888
0 days
0 drive
Ddferanos Not sa8.982
0 dove
0 Mvs
-w mwy: R is a p to [modify the Comrm falls nod
to shove of Woera:
Contract Rios prior to this Changs Order
Contract Time prior to this Change Order
Is 11,317,045.50
I Canpetlm Oatn October 15. 1999
Nat increase idecreaal of trill Changs Ordw
Not tncraas Ideaeaal of this Charge Ordw
Is 39.982
1 0
Ravrad Convect Price with e0 eppoved Crranpe Orders RWgb Contract Tyne Win all Approved Charge Orders
N 11,357,027 5o
I compedPn Date: Ock#f 15.1998
The chwgris YrrJrrid to d e Change Order en to be socowrpYr rd In omordwas with the twins, adptdatiom find
conditions of tfr "W W Contract as though Yrchrdsd tfsweln.
far Y/:Ostermrld.d
I
LeMm"ed
ApprovAl 8`INOA crpkrwkp, ha.1
oats
I
l l
Approved for Owner thy:
Attest Dote
roaM 1,0 0=1 evaaw I e m: Two go
ah yOft>/.1
c. nwr Oros maisim .R. r
a. TOTFC PAGE.02 .♦
SO o I
Council Agenda - 10/13/97
v
6B. Consideration of a eondiNonal use permit to allow 1) the
establishment of an autobody repair shop and accessory outdoor
storage area within a R-4 (higbway b ainess) o ingi�atrjc ; and
2) a planned vinit development conditional use permit (PIJ /CLIP) to
allow shared use of an outdoor storage area (with adjacent autobodv
shop), Applicant. John Jnhnson. W.M.G. )
A. R_F.FERF.NCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission recommended approval based on the site plan
under Exhibit C. This alternative included denial of a variance request.
There was no appeal of the variance request by the property owner;
therefore, the variance stands denied. The only options for Council are to
approve per the Planning Commission recommendation or deny the request
all together.
Staff concurs with the Planning Commission recommendation, which is
identified in the attached report.
There was one letter in opposition to this conditional use permit request
submitted by Greg Smith.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Adopt the Planning Commission recommendation and findings (see
notee on attached report).
2. Deny the conditional use permit.
The City Administrator recommends alternative t11.
D SUPPORTING DATA:
Planning Commission item written by City Planner
Planning Commission Agenda — 10/7/97
DConsideration of a rnnditional use nermjt to aqt?w 11 the establishment of an
autobody repair shop and accessory outdoor stnrage area within a B-3.
Hlahwav Business Zonino District. 21 a Planned Unit Develooment Conditional
Use Permit iPUD/CUP) to allow shared use of an outdoor storage area (with
adiacent autobody shopJ. and 3L9 ....;...... % 30 font Fear
...d llaa L F8QUiFPMeR4S--- -- -- n e 7 n:1A f A.L..r.. ..t.
John Johnson. (NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Background. Mr. John Johnson has submitted a request to construct an autobcdy repair
facility upon a 14,650 square foot parcel of land located south of Interstate 94 and west
of Sandberg Road. To accommodate the request, the following approvals are necessary:
1. Conditional use permit to allow the establishment of an autobody repair facility (with
accessory outdoor storage) within a B-3, Highway Business District.
2. Planned unit development conditional use permit (F L)DICUP) to allow shared use
of an outdoor storage area (by an adjacent autobody repair facility).
3. Variance from the minimum 30 foot rear yard setback imposed in B-3 Zoning
Districts.
Conditional Use Permit Review
CUP Review Criteria. The purpose of the conditional use permit process is to enable the
City Council to ass;gn dimensions to a proposed use after consideration of adjacent land
uses and their functions. In this regard, the City of Monticello is provided a reasonable
degree of discretion in determining the suitability of certain designated uses upon the
general welfare, public health and safety of its citizens.
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:
1. Relationship to the 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.
5. The demonstrated need for such use.
50g -r
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/7/97
Applicable B-3 District provisions list autobody repair and accessory outdoor storage as
1 conditional uses subject to various performance related conditions. Provided all
performance are satisfied, it is believed the proposed use can compatibly exist upon the
subject property.
Planned Unit Development. As .:-,awn on the submitted site plan (Exhibit B), the
applicant is proposing to share an outdoor storage area with an adjacent autobody shop
to the north (also owned by the applicant). To accommodate this 'shared use'
arrangement, the processing of a planned unit development conditional use permit
(PUD/CUP) is necessary. 'rhe PUD process is intended to allow certain design flexibilities
in order to provide a more desirable development product. Aside from the referenced
out000r storage area, the PUD may also accommodate a shared parking arrangement and
associated parking lot setback flexibility.
Lot Requirements. The B-3 Zoning District does not impose a minimum lot size
requirement. The ordinance does, however, stipulate that lots within B-:3 Districts must be
not less than 100 feet in width. At + 110 feet in width (measured at front setback), the site
in question exceeds minimum lot width requirements.
Setbacks. With the exception of the rear yard setback, the proposed autobody shop
complies with applicable B-3 District setback requirements as shown below:
Required Setback Proposed Setback
Front Yard 30 feet 47 feet
Side Yard 10 feet 17 feet
Rear Yard 30 feet 19 feet
To accommodate the proposed rear yard setback, the applicant has requested approval
of a variance. This item will be addressed in a latter section of this report.
Off -Street Parking. According to the zoning ordinance, automobile repair facilities must
provide 8 off-street parking spaces plus 1 space for each 800 square feet over 1,000
square feet. Thus, the proposed autobody shop must provide a total of 11 oft -street
parking spaces.
As shown on the submitted site plan, a total of 7 off-street parking spaces have been
proposed. As a condition of PUD/CUP approval, the site plan should be revised to comply
with applicable off-street parking supply requirements. As a means of maximizing land
56-:),
Planning CG=iasian Agenda - 10/7/97
area devoted to off-street parking, a shared access and parking arrangement should be
considered. Attached Exhibit C graphically illustrates an alternative parking arrangement
which meets the referenced off-street parking requirement.
Outdoor Storage. As noted previously, the applicant is proposing to share an outdoor
storage area with an existing autobody shop located to the north of the subject site (also
owned by the applicant). Via the PUD, such arrangement may be considered acceptable.
Issues relatcd to the possible ramifications of a future property sale on the shared use
arrangement should be subject to comment by the City Attorney and stipulated in the PUD
agreement.
The ordinance states that the vehicle storage area associated with an autobody shop must
be limited to 50% of the area of the autobody shop. Assuming the entire outdoor storage
area is to be devoted to vehicle storage, the outdoor storage area has been found to
comprise ± 75 percent of the area of the principal building. Accordingly, the vehicle
storage area should be reduced to 50% of the area of the principal building.
In large part, the configuration of the proposed outdoor storage area prompts the need for
the requested principal building setback variance. To avoid the need for such variance,
consideration should be given to reconfiguring the outdoor storage area in a manner
similar to that graphically illustrated upon attached Exhibit C.
Screening. According to the ordinance, outdoor storage areas must be fenced and
screened from view of residential uses and public rights-of-way. As a result, the outdoor
storage area must be specifically screened from Marvin Road to the west and Sandberg
Road to the east. The ordinance also states that 'vehicle storage areas" must be
minimally screened by a 6 foot high 100 percent opaque fence which is designed to blend
with the autobody shop and constructed of materials treated to resist discoloration.
Surfacing. As a condition of CUP approval, outdoor vehicle storage areas associated with
autobody shops must be surfaced in asphalt or concrete.
Building Materials. According to the ordinance, the advertising wall (of an autobody
shop) which faces the public right-of-way must consist of not more than 50% metal. The
ordinance further states that the secondary or non -advertising wall facing a public right-of-
way must utilize a combination of colors or materials that break up the monotony of a
single color flat surface. As a condition of CUP approval, the autobody shop must comply
with applicable building material requirements.
Lighting. As a condition of CUP approval, all exterior lighting must be hooded and so
directed such that light source is not visible from public rights-of-way or neighboring
residences
66-3
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/7/97
Signage. The submitted site plan does not specify the type and location of site signage.
As a condition of CU P approval, all signage must comply with applicable provision of the
ordinance.
Loading. In accordance with ordinance requirements, the site plan should be modified
to illustrate an off-street loading space.
Variance Review
Variance Review Criteria. As noted previously, the applicant has requested a variance
from the 30 foot rear yard setback imposed in B-3 Zoning Districts.
Section 23-3 of the ordinance states that in considering requests for variance, the Planning
Commission and City staff must make a finding that approval of the variance will not:
1. Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property.
2. Unreasonably increase the congestion of the public street.
3. Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety.
4. Unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the
neighborhood or in any other way be contrary to the intent of the ordinance.
The ordinance further states that a finding of non -economic hardship must be made and
that the property in question cannot be put to reasonable use if the variance is denied.
In review of the preceding variance evaluation criteria, it is believed thar non -economic
hardship (unique to the subject property) does not exist to warrant approval of the
requested variance. As an alternative to the request for variance, a repositioning or
downsizing of the building should be considered. An altemative building 'positioning'
which complies with B-3 setback requirements is illustrated upon attached Exhibit C.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
DECISION ONE:
1. Conditional Use Permit
A. Conditional use permit approval as per the site plan depicted upon attached
Exhibit B. Motion to approve a planned unit development conditional use
permit to allow an autObody repair facility (with accessory outdoor storage)
within a B-3 Zoning District, and shared use of an outdoor storage area per
the conditions outlined in Exhibit D.
(t) Findings.
10 4
66
Planning Coamieeion Agenda - 10/7/97
(a) 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.
(b) The proposed project is consistent with the purpose of the
performance standards of the Zoning Ordinance and planned
unit development.
(c) The proposed project will not have any adverse impacts as
outlined in the conditional use permit section of the zoning
ordinance.
(d) The proposed project shall provide adequate parking and
loading as outlined herein.
(e) The proposed project shall not impose any undue burden upon
public facilities and services.
B. Conditional use permit approval as per the site plan depicted upon attached
Exhibit C. Motion to approve a planned unit development conditional use
permit to allow an auto body repair facility (with accessory outdoor storage)
PVO" ' d, within a B-3 Zoning District and shared use of an outdoor storage area per
the conditions outlined in Exhibit D.
0110-1
lit, —:�o (t) Findings.
(a) 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.
(b) The proposed project is consistent with the purpose of the
performance standards of the Zoning Ordinance and planned
unit development.
(c) The proposed project will not have any adverse impacts as
outlined in the conditional use permit section of the zoning
ordinance.
(d) The proposed project shall provide adequate parking and
loading as outlined herein.
(e) The proposed project shall not impose any undue burden upon
public facilities and services.
11 5V •S
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/7/97
C. Conditional Use Permit Denial. Motion to deny a planned unit development
conditional use permit to allow an auto body repair facility (with accessory
outdoor storage) within a B-3 Zoning District and shared use of an outdoor
storage area.
(1) Findings.
(a) The -proposed use is not consistent with the spirit and intent of
the Monticello Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and
planned unit development regulations.
(b) The proposed use is likely to have an adverse impact upon
surrounding properties.
DECISION TWO: i b A t « _ %
1. Variance — D� :. d b,0 pc - N • Alf"�P
A. Variance Approval. Motion to approve a variance from the minimum 30 foot
rear yard setback requirement imposed in the B-3 Zoning District.
(1) Findings
(a) Approval of the variance will not:
(1) Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property.
(2) Unreasonably increase the congestion in the public
street.
(3) Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety.
(4) Unreasonably diminish or impair established property
values within the neighborhood or in nay other way be
contrary to the intent of this ordinance.
(b) The subject property cannot be put to reasonable use if the
variance request is denied.
17 96.to
Planning Co®isaion Agenda - 10/7/97
B. Variance Denial. Motion to deny a variance from the minimum 30 foot rear
yard setback requirement imposed in the B-3 District.
(1) Findings
(a) Non -economic hardship has not been demonstrated to warrant
approval of the requested variance.
(b) The property in question can be put to reasonable use if the
variance request is denied.
C. RECOMMENDATION
Based on the preceding review, our office recommends approval of the requested planned
unit development conditional use permit subject to the conditions listed.
It is further our opinion that non -economic hardship has not been demonstrated to warrant
approval of the requested rear yard setback variance. Thus, we recommend denial of the
variance request.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A - Site Location
Exhibit 8 - Site Plan
Exhibit C - Site Plan Alternative
Exhibit D - Planned Unit Development/Conditional Use Permit Conditions
181.07 - 97.18
13 56-1
-.t (, r� '+ ' = 1 � r� � r ��� �"fir .�, �"•"`... 'J)JI •) r'„�,',�
�Z ` ~/ r "*- r-•- • '"'-_-..:� r -rs ^�. "'__;.� � '..' o �Pi;TJ 1 I J �'7-^•,} �r�
),! ..jc^'ij .. L_, •� ��;'j :i'�:,,.1'i'rl• ,.Z_I i; /'^�•i.,, '�.
` "'--J �`1 -`"^;� _,., � +r 1'1�l.tt.��O•.t% '1:
�Jf r
N}GNWAY
-.. N0. 94
sil
%t
I
r
M
EXNIMT 8 • WE PLAN
58-9
j�
S �' �4• E
141.07 LIAC A \
l
6V
r _ \ /•
� a
r'•
l�
•.
/^ �
�•
t � f;
■
/�!•iN�
.rlf.S.v I T ice♦
S N'39•36• v [01.00
EXNIMT 8 • WE PLAN
58-9
�j 4
\'t q -V
co
0 Q 11 0
t
EXHIBIT C - SITE PLAN ALTF.P/NNAAvTIVE
c - 0 lJ
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT/
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CONDITIONS
(a) The submitted site plan is modified to comply with applicable off-street parking
requirements (11 spaces required).
(b) Consideration is given to consolidating the parking lots of the subject site and
adjacent northerly site in a manner similar to that illustrated upon Exhibit C.
(c) The City Attomey provide comment and recommendation in regard to issues
associated with possible future sale of the subject site or adjacent northerly
property.
(d) The outdoor storage area is reduced in size to not more than 50 percent of the area
of the principal building.
(e) The outdoor vehicle storage area is minimally screened by a six foot high, 100
percent opaque fence which is designed to blend with the auto body shop and
which is constructed of materials treated to resist discoloration.
(f) The outdoor vehicle storage area is surfaced in asphalt or concrete.
(g) Exterior finish materials of the body shop comply with applicable ordinance
requirements.
(h) All exterior lighting is hooded and directed such that the light source is not visible
from public rights-of-way or neighboring residences.
(i) All site signage comply with applicable provisions of the ordinance.
(j)
The site plan is modified to illustrate an off-street loading space.
06, .Vdp S"Ce h:w� Fal"S M.. -.f 6• rc:%r'_kcd
8
EXHIBIT D
S(C� -DS
Council Agenda - 10/13/97
,1 1 : •: ! 1 I 1 111 1 ! 11 .' j11 ,1 1 '. 1 1 1 11.1
[�;ialy5i;��1 C�7�►:\177:�N:<ewelvap]
Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions as noted.
Adopt the Planning Commission recommendation and findings.
Deny the request based on findings in the Planner's report.
C- STAFF F O MFNDATION:
The City Administrator recommends alternative 401.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of Planning Commission agenda item written by the City Planner.
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/7/97
e. Consideration of: 11 a conditional use oermit to allow open/outdoor storage,
sale and service and automobile (recreational vehiclel repair within a B-3
Zonina District. and Zl a variance from the minimum five foot setback imposed
goon oarkino areci associated with commercial uses. AonIicant. Bruce
Medlock and Michael Galante on behalf of Monticello RV Center. Inc. (NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Background. Bruce Medlock and Michael Galante on behalf of Monticello RV Center Inc.
have submitted a request to establish a recreational vehicle center upon a + 4.3 acre
parcel of land located north of Interstate 94 and west of Elm Street (former Rolling Wheels
Go -Cart and mini -golf site). The proposed RV center would involve the sale, rental,
service of recreational vehicles and enclosed utility trailers, sales and installation of RV
towing accessories and the seasonal storage of recreational vehicles.
To accommodate the proposed use, the following approvals are necessary:
Conditional use permit to allow the following activities in a B-3 Zoning District.
a. Open/outdoor storage
b. Open/outdoor sale/service
C. Minor automobile (recreational vehicle) repair.
Variance to allow off-street parking within five feet of a lot line.
Conditional Use Permit Review:
Site Modifications. As noted previously, the site in question was previously occupied by
Rolling Wheels Go -Cart and Mini -Golf. It is the applicant's intent to convert the former
mini -golf course to a product display area and the former go-cart track to an outdoor
storage area. It is further the intent of the applicants to construct a 3,900 square foot
addition (65' x 60') to the existing 1,950 square foot building (65' x 3(Y) which presently
exists on site.
CUP Review Criteria. The purpose of the conditional use permit process is to enable the
City Council to assign dimensions to a proposed use after consideration of adjacent land
uses and their functions. In this regard, the City of Monticello is provided a reasonable
degree of discretion in determining the suitability of certain designated uses upon the
general welfare, public health and safety of its citizens.
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:
14 w to/
Planning Commission Agenda — 10/7/97
1. Relationship to the Municipal Comprehensive Plan.
2. The geographical area involved.
14 3. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is
proposed.
4. The character of the surrounding area.
5. The demonstrated need for such use.
While physical characteristics of the site will change as a result of the proposed use, the
proposed RV Center use may in fact lessen compatibility concerns of the previous Go -Cart
use (i.e., noise). In this regard, it is believed that the RV Center can compatibly exist on
the subject property, provided all applicable performance standards are met.
Screening. According to the ordinance, all outdoor storage areas must be screened from
view of abutting residential zoning districts and public rights-of-way. Additionally, outdoor
sales areas must be screened from abutting residential districts. Considering that the site
in question is bounded on the north by an R-3 Zoning District and on the south by a public
right-of-way (1-94), screening is of particular relevance. While the outdoor storage and
area is fenced (via chain link), a determination must be made that the fence provides an
adequate visual screen and whether the City's buffer yard requirements have been
satisfied. It should be particularly noted that chain link fence with slats does not constitute
an acceptable screening solution.
According to the ordinance, commercial uses which abut high density residential uses
must provide a 20 foot wide landscape yard. Within such yard, a minimum of 80 plantings
per 100 feet of property line must be provided. With the site's northern border measuring
627 feet in length, a total of 499 plants must be provided. This number may, however, be
reduced to 250 plans (50 percent) in recognition of the site's northerly fence and may be
reduced further if existing trees or vegetation exists within the 20 foot landscape yard.
Landscaping. In addition to the forementioned screening requirements, a landscape plan
must be submitted for review. The plan should specify the location, type and size of all
proposed site plantings.
Surfacing. In accordance with ordinance requirements, the outdoor sales area is to be
surfaced in grass. Likewise, the proposed crush rock surfacing material proposed in the
outdoor sales area complies with applicable ordinance requirements. To clearly delineate
the outdoor sales area, however, it is suggested that the crushed rock be contained by
curbing, edging or an elevational change (lower) from bordering off-street parking areas
as deemed appropriate by the City Building Official.
Lighting. Within the outdoor storage and sales area, all lighting must be hooded and so
directed such that light source is not visible from public rights-of-way or neighboring
residences
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/7/97
Off -Street Parking. The Zoning Ordinance does not include a specific off-street parking
standard for outdoor sales and storage lots. For reference purposes, the following
standards as provided in an American Planning Association document titled Off -Street
Parkino Requirements are considered applicable.
Use Ratio Required
Spaces
Indoor Sales Display
1 Space Per 600 Square Feet
2
(1,300 sq.ft.)
Outdoor Sales Display
1 Space Per 2,000 Square
14
(28,400 sq.ft.)
Feet
Outdoor Storage'
1 Per Employee on Largest
4
(127,250 sq.ft.)
Shift
Auto (RV) Repair"
8 Spaces Plus 1 Space for
10
(2,600 sq.ft.)
Each 800 Square Feet over
1,000 square feet
TOTAL SPACES REQUIRED
30
Includes service department staging area
Standard per Monticello Zoning Ordinance
While it appears that ample area exists to satisfy applicable off-street parking
requirements, the site plan should be modified to illustrate individual parking stalls
including those to be devoted to use by the handicapped (1 per 25 spaces required).
Recreational Vehicle Repair. As noted previously, it is the applicants intent to repair and
service recreational vehicles on site. Technically, such use qualifies as 'auto repair -minor'
and may be accommodated only via approval of a conditional use permit.
Noise. The majority of issues associated with recreational vehicle repair have been
previously addressed. The ordinance does, however, stipulate that provisions must be
made to control and reduce noise associated with automobile repair facilities. This
stipulation will be made a condition of CUP approval.
Lot Requirements. According to the ordinance, auto repair facilities must satisfy the
following minimum lot requirements:
Lot Area 22,500 square feet
Lot Width 130 feet
Lot Depth 150 feet
16
sc -3
Planning Ce=iaeion Agenda - 10/7/97
At ± 4.3 acres in size, the subject site significantly exceeds minimum area requirements.
While the subject property is provided only 100 feet of street frontage (at the Elm Street
property line), it technically meets applicable lot width requirements as 200 feet of width
is provided at the building setback line.
Building Addition. It is the applicant's intent to construct a 3,900 square foot addition to
'J
the existing 1,950 square foot structure which presently exists on site. While a schematic
.
perspective of the proposed building addition has been submitted (see Exhibit C), the
building's height and exterior finish materials have not been specified. As a condition of
CUP approval, the building height and exterior finish materials must comply with applicable
0
ordinance requirements.
Signage. The submitted site plan does not specify the type and location of site signage.
As a condition of CUP approval, all signage must comply with applicable provision of the
ordinance.
LL
Loading. In accordance with ordinance requirements, the site plan should be modified
to illustrate an off-street loading space.
Variance Review
Variance Review Criteria. According to the ordinance, all off-street parking areas
associated with commercial uses must have a perimeter curb barrier not closer than five
feet to any lot line. As shown on the submitted site plan, it is the applicant's intent to
extend the RV Center's off-street parking to the site's northern boundaries (represents a
pre-existing condition).
Section 23-3 of the ordinance states that in considering requests for variance, the Planning
Commission and City staff must make a finding that approval of the variance will not:
1. Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property.
2. Unreasonably increase the congestion it the public street.
3. Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety.
4. Unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the
neighborhood or in any other way be contrary to the intent of the ordinance.
The ordinance further states that a finding of non -economic hardship must be made and
that the property in question cannot be put to reasonable use if the variance is denied.
The applicant's request for variance is unique in that it represents a pre-existing non-
conforming situation. Via the CUP, the City has the ability to require a five fool parking
area setback (in conformance with ordinance requirements).
17 CC do r
Planning Cc=iasion Agenda - 10/7/97
In consideration of the variance request, it is believed a case can be made both for
approval and denial. On the one hand, the existing parking lot may be considered to have
legal grandfather rights and does not negatively impact adjacent properties. On the other
hand, there has been no demonstration of non -economic hardship to warrant approval of
the variance. While it is acknowledged that the parking lot represents a pre-existing
condition, it is the opinion of our office that the variance evaluation criteria has not been
satisfied and that the City should, when opportunities exist, attempt to adhere to its present
performance standards.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
DECISION ONE: M`n8o
1. Conditional Use Permit
A. Conditional Use Permit Approval. Motion to approve a conditional use
permit to allow open/outdoor storage, sales and service, and minor
automobile (recreational vehicle) repair in a B-3 Zoning District per the
conditions outlined in Exhibit D.
1. Findings.
(a) 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.
(b) The proposed project is consistent with the purpose of the
performance standards of the Zoning Ordinance.
(c) The proposed project will not have any adverse impacts as
outlined in the conditional use permit section of the Zoning
Ordinance.
(d) The proposed project shall provide adequate parking and
loading as outlined herein.
(e) The proposed project shall not impose any undue burden upon
public facilities and services.
B. Conditional Use Permit Denial. Motion to deny a conditional use permit to
allow open/outdoor storage, sales and service; and minor automobile
(recreational vehicle) repair in a B3 Zoning District.
le
CC -67
Planning Co®ission Agenda - 10/7/97
(1) Findings
v (a) The proposed use is not consistent with the spirit and intent of
the Monticello Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
(b) The proposed use is likely to have an adverse impact upon
surrounding properties.
DECISION TWO: � - S,V • not 41
1. Variance v ° P'O.010'd o o- �O ^, c o
FL
A. Variance Approval. Motion to approve a variance to allow an off-street
parking area (associated with a commercial use) within five feet of a lot line.
1. Findinas
(a) The request for variance responds to a pre-existing site
condition.
(b) Approval of the variance will not:
(1) Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property.
(2) Unreasonably increase the congestion in the public
street.
(3) Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety
(4) Unreasonably diminish or impair established property
values within the neighborhood or in any other way be
contrary to the intent of this ordinance.
(c) The subject property cannot be put to reasonable use if the
variance request is denied.
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/7/97
B. Variance Denial. Motion to deny a variance to allow an off-street parking
1 area (associated with a commercial use) within five feet of a lot line.
(1) Findings
(a) Non -economic hardship has not been demonstrated to warrant
approval of the requested variance.
(b) The property in question can be put to reasonable use if the
variance request is denied.
C. RECOMMENDATION
Based on the preceding review, our office believes the proposed use is appropriate for the
site in question and recommends approval of the requested conditional use permit subject
to the conditions listed upon Exhibit D.
While it is recognized that the site's parking lot represents a pre-existing condition, it is our
opinion that non -economic hardship has not been demonstrated to warrant approval of the
requested setback variance.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A - Site Location
Exhibit B - Site Plan
Exhibit C - Building Floor Plan/Perspective
Exhibit D - Conditional Use Permit Conditions
191.07 - 97.20
I
Gn, -
11
��
Cou
--v
SITE
EXHIBIT A - SITE LOCATION
sc dow 81
i\'�
rr f �
k�o
--v
SITE
EXHIBIT A - SITE LOCATION
sc dow 81
J
�f� uue o. ua{ o -� �u� cotut a •lcv ..
417./4
-- � •0�..1--- • --- - \ Sra`rva .6Re�1 ,Cb2
rr7•o�,_� SeevicE -hf oI:
. C W uGn /.LOC/L
w \
i
m
n ..w.• •••••w. •.�• �J,�/lioN Y'o C!/?2 FSM' � 1
o
P
CvsroMe� 4(2)i/vl� U'
0 4 iso v� D
X
z
Sire-
(1) ita -o CLQ H& -r
(g) 14 o/N Das — 01 PouGN Iv 01N Des
lu3uw7�Fo �-/ooEst• % 3d..>ra•��Tcw
I FiP6 came
►) to 56A �R .� E^✓B
eG.4eUr
�ry� 3HFereoc1 IN�R�OO G.vC2
0) sties
eE,✓..c-
GC�
Ck-)
STETEt FPfbr
(p)
Ass -r
(a)
89, &-.o, E
(-o) Sreet F�
(td Aos r G'.c.
EXHIBIT C - BUILDING FLOOR PLANIPERSPECTIVE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CONDITIONS
(1) All outdoor storage and sales areas are screened from view of abutting residential
zoning districts and public rights-of-way in accordance with applicable City
screening requirements including a 20 foot landscape yard along the site's northern
boundary.
(2) A landscape plan is submitted which identifies the location, type and size of all site
plantings.
(3) The crushed rock surfacing of the outdoor sales area is contained by curbing,
edging or an elevational change (lower) from the bordering off-street parking areas
as deemed appropriate by the City Building Official.
(4) All exterior lighting is hooded and directed such that the light source is not visible
from public rights-of-way or neighboring residences.
(5) The site plan is revised to illustrate individual parking stalls (including those
devoted to the handicapped).
(6) Provisions are made to control and reduce noise associated with the proposed
recreational vehicle repair activities.
(7) The City Engineer provide comment and recommendation regarding drainage
issues.
(8) The site's principal building comply with applicable height and building material
requirements.
(9) All site signage comply with applicable provisions of the ordinance.
(10) The site plan is modified to illustrate an off-street loading space.
CII (3..:1d'. o14:c'�al A,.I1-o1GYa0 ♦o slo geo
I..��t w(t%-N C•�dt+ �'�on. I U1 o Pa-tt.r. f
�cnd)ticn5
EXHUT D
Council Agenda - 10/13/97
1, Tl y:: 1 T1M=77-
, 1 1
Planning Commission recommended approval based on the conditions as
noted. The applicant has not objected to the conditions.
Motion to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation.
Motion to deny the requests.
C STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The City Administrator recommends that the City Council adopt the
Planning Commission recommendation.
D SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of Planning Commission agenda item written by the City Planner.
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/7/97
•.171 ar_ �. •i M •.• 1:7.acct :n.-i•iu.,u .i.:I! 17MR;
•. . e. i. ;.: ��• a •� - �1 •ii !.:.� 1: .-.• 1! .
.- • c u ' , i• a =u- u.
A- R FE EN .F AND BACKGROUND
Background. Gould Brothers Chevrolet has submitted plans to expand its e>asbng
automobile dealership structure located south of Interstate 94 and west of Marvin Road.
Specifically, the applicant is proposing various additions to its existing building which total
13,300 square feet in area. Such additions will result in a building measuring 28,100
square feet in size.
Rezoning Review:
Rezoning Evaluation Criteria. As shown on Exhibit hibit B, only the eastern one-quarter of
the subject site is zoned B-3, the remaining three-quarters of the site (recently annexed)
is zoned A-0, Agricultural Open Space. To accommodate the proposed use, a rezoning
of the western portion of the site to a B-3, Highway Business designation Is necessary.
In consideration of rezoning requests, Section 22-1.D of the ordinance directs the Planning
Commission to consider the following:
Relationship to the Municipal Comprehensive Plan.
The geographical area involved.
Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is
proposod.
The character of the surrounding area.
The demonstrated need for such use.
The City's Comprehensive Plan (Land Use Plan) suggests commorcial use of the subject
property. As a result, the proposed use is consistent with the provisions of the
Comprehensive Plan. Provided all applicable City performance standards are met, the
proposed use satisfies applicable zoning amendment evaluation criteria.
Planned Unit Dovelopment/Conditlonal Use Permit Review:
Site Modifications. As noted previously, the applicant intends to expand Its existing
automobile dealership structure. Specifically a ± 7,700 square foot addition to the north
and a ± 5,600 square foot addition to the south have boon proposed. In conjunction with
such building additions, tho following have been proposed.
sD-/
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/7/97
• Constructiorgdelineation of a customer parking area.
• Perimeter tree plantings.
• Relocation of an outdoor fuel storage tank.
• Landscaping along the building's northern facade.
CUP Review Criteria. To accommodate the proposed mixture of site uses (outdoor
storage and sales areas and automobile body shop), the approval of a planned unit
dove lopmenUconditional use permit Is necessary. The purpose of the conditional use
permit process is to enable the City Council to assign dimensions to a proposed use after
consideration of adjacent land uses and heir functions. In this regard, the City of
Monticello is provided a reasonable degree of discretion in determining the suitability of
certain designated uses upon the general welfare, public health and safety of its citizens.
Procedurally, the Planning Commission and City Council must consider the possible
adverse effects of the proposed conditional use. Its judgement shall be based upon the
same criteria utilized in the evaluation of rezoning requests (presented In previous
section). Provided all applicable performance standards are met, the proposed use
satisfies applicable CUP evaluation criteria.
Outdoor Storage. Screening requirements applicable to the site's outdoor storage area
are dependent upon whether such storage area is accessory to the dealership's auto body
repair shop. Assuming the outdoor storage area is to be used for vehicle storage, the area
must comply with the following:
1. The storage area not exceed 50 percent of the floor area of the body shop.
2. The storage area is screened via a six foot high, 100 percent opaque fence
designed to blend with the body shop (principal building) and treated to resist
discoloration.
3. The storage area is surfaced In asphalt or concrete paving.
The site is not hounded by any residentially zoned property. As a result, screening of the
outdoor sales area is not required.
Landscaping. As shown on the submitted site plan, the applicant is proposing a mixture
of six foot maple and pine trees (25 feet on center) along the site's eastern boundary. A
mixture of landscape shrubs has been proposed upon the site's northern botmdary and
directly north of the dealership building. The extreme southeast area of the site is to be
retained as green space. The proposed landscaping efforts are considered acceptable.
Surfacing. In accadarlce with Ordinanco requirements, the dealership's sales lot is to be
surfaced in asphalt. As mentioned previously, the vehicle storage area must (as a
condition of CUP approval) be surfaced in asphalt or concrete paving.
29 56-
,\ —k
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/7/97
Lighting. Within the outdoor sales, outdoor storage areas, and off-street parking areas,
all lighting must be hooded and so directed such that the light source is not visible from
public rights-of-way or neighboring residences.
Off -Street Parking. The Zoning Ordinance does not include a specific off-street parking
standard for automobile dealerships. For reference purposes, the following standards as
provided in an American Planning Association document titled Off-Stramet Parking
Reauirements are, however, considered applicable.
Use
Ratio
Indoor Sales Display
1 Space Per 600 Square Feet
Outdoor Sales Display
1 Space Per 2,000 Square Feet
Outdoor Storage'
1 Per Employee on Largest Shift
Auto (RV) Repair'
8 Spaces Plus 1 Space for Each
800 Square Feet over 1,000
square feet
Standard per Monticello Zoning Ordinance
To determine the required parting supply of the proposed use, square footage summaries
of the aforementioned uses must be provided.
As shown on the submitted site plan, a specific off-street parking area for customers has
been proposed to the west of the site's principal smxture. Spedfically, a nine stall angled
parking lot has been proposed. To determine whether such lot design can be successfully
integrated into the site's overall circulation system, vehicle drive lanes, parking locations,
and service door locations should be delineated upon the site plan.
As a condition of CUP approval, the c utamer parking tot should be spe flcalty delineated
via curbing and striping. Additionally, handicap stalls should be identified. A graphic
example of a possible customer parking lot layout is attached as Exhibit E.
Building Materials. While the site plan identifies proposed building expansion areas,
elevations depicting the dosign and materials of the proposed structure addition should
be stipulated. As a condition of PUD/CUP approval, the materials of the proposed
structure additions must comply with applicablo City building material requirements.
Billboard. Presently, an off -premise advertising sign (billboard) exists In the extreme
northwest comor of the subject property. Bocause the City s Zoning Ordinance no longer
allows the establishment of billboards, the sign in question tochnically exists as a logal
non -conformity. According to the Ordinance, all non -conforming advertising signs must to
removod or brought into conformity within fivo yoars of notification (in writing). The
Go ...3
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/7/97
referenced advertising sign must be removed within five years of official approval of the
requested PUD/CUP.
Gas Tank. The submitted site plan indicates that a gas tank located to the northwest of
the dealership building is to be relocated. As a condition of CUP approval, the proposed
gas tank location should be identified on the site plan.
Signage. The submitted site plan does not specify the type and location of site signage.
As a condition of CUP apprcval, all signage must comply with applicable provisions of the
Ordinance.
Loading. In accordance with Ordinance requirements, the site plan should be modified
to illustrate an off-street loading space.
Drainage. As a condition of CUP approval, the City Engineer should provide comment
and recommendation on drainage related issues.
Variance Review
Variance Review Criteria. According to the Ordinance, all off-street parking areas
associated with commercial uses must have a perimeter curb. It is the applicant's intent
to utilize the site's existing parking lot 'as is' (without curbing). To accommodate this
condition, the processing of a variance is necessary.
Section 23.3 of the ordinance states that in considering requests for variance, the Planning
Commission and City staff must make a finding that approval of the variance will not
1. Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property.
2. Unreasonably Increase the congestion it the public street.
3. Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety.
4. Unreasonably dlrninish or impair established property values within the
neighborhood or in any other way be contrary to the intent of the ordinance.
The Ordinance further states that a finding of noneconomic hardship must be made and
that the property in question cannot be put to reasonable use If the variance is denied.
Via the CUP, the City has the ability to require a perimeter curb around all off-street
parking areas (in conformance with Ordinance requirements). The City's curbing
requirement has two primary purposes. The first Is the management of storm water runoff,
the second boing the delineation of off-street parking areas. The applicant's request for
variance is unique in that it represents o pre-existing non -conforming situation.
In consideration of the variance request, It Is believed a can can be made both for
approval and denial. On the one hand, tho existing perking lot may be considered to have
legal grandfa0w rights and does not negatively Impact adjacent properties. On the other
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/7/97
hand, there has bean no demonstration of non -economic hardship to warrant approval of
the variance. While it Is acknowledged that the parking lot represents a pre-existing
condition, it is the opinion of our office that the variance evaluation criteria has not been
satisfied and that the City should, when opportunities exist, attempt to adhere to its present
performance standards.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS L
DECISION ONE: 0 b
1. Rezoning. �e La "'^
A Rezoning AE oval. Motion to approve the rezoning of the property from
A-0, Agricultural 6pen Space to B-3, Highway Business.
1. Rndinos.
(a) 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.
(b) The proposed project is consistent with the purpose of the
performance standards of the Zoning Ordinance.
(c) The proposed project will not have any adverse impacts as
outlined in the conditional use permit section of the Zoning
Ordinance.
(d) The proposed project shall provide adequate parking and
loading as outlined herein.
(e) The proposed project shall not impose any undue burden upon
public facilities and services.
S. Rezoning Denial. Motion to deny the rezoning of the property from A-0,
Agricultural Open Space to ", Highway Business.
(1) ElBdlnss
(a) The proposed use Is not comistant with the spirit and intent of
the Monticello Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
(b) The proposed use Is likely to have an adverse impact upon
surrounding propenles.
32
Planning Commission Agenda — 10/7/97
DECISION TWO:
1. Planned Unit Development/Conditional Use Permit. <— Pcc
A Planned unit development/conditional use permit approval. Motion to
approve a planned unit development/oonditional use permit to allow outdoor
sales, outdoor storage, and auto body repair in a B-3 Zoning District subject
to the conditions listed in Exhibit D.
(1) Findings -
(a) The proposed project is consistent with the spirit and intent of
the Monticello Comprehensive Plan goals and policies and in
keeping with the intern of the Zoning Ordinance.
(b) The proposed project is consistent with the purpose of the
performance standards of the Zoning Ordinance.
(c) The proposed project will not have any adverse impacts as
outlined in the conditional use permit section of the Zoning
Ordinance.
(d) The proposed project shall provide adequate parking and
loading as outlined herein.
(e) The proposed project shall riot Impose any undue burden upon
public facilities and services.
B. Planned unit development/conditional use parnlR denial. Motion to deny a
planned unit development/conditional use permit to allow outdoor sales,
outdoor storage, and automobile body repair in a 8.3 Zoning District
(1) FIndIncis-
(a) The proposed use is not consistent with the spirit end intent of
the Monticollo Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
(b) The proposed use is likely to have an adverse Impact upon
surrounding properties.
DECISION THREE:
1. Variance �) 41L 11 1
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/7/97
A Variance Approval. Motion to approve a variance to allow an off-street
parking area (associated with a commercial use) without perimeter cubing.
1. Findinos
(a) The request for variance responds to a pre-existing site
condition.
(b) Approval of the variance will not:
(1) Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property.
(2) Unreasonably increase the congestion in the public
street
(3) Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety.
(4) Unreasonably diminish or impair established property
values within the neighborhood or In any other way be
contrary to the Intent of this ordinance.
(c) The subject property cannot be put to reasonable use if the
variance request is denied.
B. Vanance Denial. Motion to deny a variance to allow an off-street parting
area (associated with a commercial use) without perimeter cubing.
(1) Findings
(a) Non-oconomic hardship has not been demonstrated to warrant
approval of the requested variance.
(b) The property in question can be put to reasonable use if the
variance request is denied.
C. RECOMMENDATION
Based on the preceding rovlow, our recommends approval of the requested planned unit
development/condltlonal use permit subject to the conditions listed upon Exhibit D.
While it is recognizod thal the site's parking lot represents a pre -"sung condition, it is our
opinion that non-economk hardship has not been demonstrated to warrant approval of the
requested curbing variance.
34 SD -'?
Planning Cocueioeion Agenda — 10/7/97
Exhibit A - Site Location
Exhibit B - Site Survey
Exhibit C - Site Pian
Exhibit D - Planned Unit DevelopmWWConditIcml Use Permit COndiiftu
Exhibit E - Parking Lot Concept
101.07 -9725
Js
r
0
1-\
Jim
vts
5�� Cl
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT/
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CONDITIONS
(1) The City approve the requested rezoning of the subject property from an A-0,
Agricultural Open Space to a B-3, Highway Business designation.
(2) The outdoor vehicle storage area not exceed 50 percent of the area of the
automobile body shop.
(3) The outdoor storage area is screened via a six foot high, 100 percent opaque fence
designed to bland with the principal building and treated to resist discoloration.
(4) The outdoor vehicular storage area is surfaced in asphalt or concrete paving.
(5) The applicant submit Information necessary to determine the amount of off-street
parking required of the use.
(6) The site plan is revised to illustrate individual off-street parking stalls (in compliance
with Ordinance requirements) and vehicle drive lanes.
(7) Off-street perking spaces Intended for customer parking are delineated via striping
and perimeter curbing in a manner similar to that Illustrated upon attached Exhibit
E.
(8) Building elevations are submitted which illustrate the design of the proposed
structure additions and specify finish materials (in compliance with Ordinance
requirements).
(9) The site's adverllsing sign (billboard) is romoved within five years of the date of
PUD/CUP approval.
(10) The site plan is revised to kk roily the proposed location of the 'relocated' gas tank.
(11) All site signago comply with applicable provisions of the Ordinance.
(12) The site plan Is revised to Illustrate an offstroot loading space.
(13) The City Engineer provide wmmont and roeommendation In rogard to drainage
issues.
l`fY� !_v,te'. L•i.sl.11i� od /a+.rfr. Stf bocrC lo��/�o�S
w,t y L,. so 1 01 dtuelop�++a-.f- oS /1ott� 0,1E�&'b.t/ C-
EXNW O
S
R,.i Meal wj .0 V) h -6 f G
OAKWOOD DRIVE
POSSIBLE OVERFLOW AREA
1 He
CUSTOMER
PARKING
AREA
ASSUMED
SHOP ENTRY
ai
11
�I
10
i
1' c ♦0'
EXHIBIT E - PARKING LOT CONCEPT
C, (� / JTPJ- P.14
Council Agenda - 10/13/97
,1 1 :1 I S •: 1 1 1 1 an 1 1 1 \- .1 1 1 1\I ntT-nlannectunit
dpvelopmentdistrict .1a1low m6xed uses1 1 combffinsation 1
variance fromthp sethaekmquirements1joading-dacL
,
nthermquired improvernprits1 nonconforming
ApplivanLi .I :J 1 li ountain Feed.•
Planning Commission recommended approval without requiring
improvements with the initial phase.
Motion to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation.
2. Motion to deny the request.
C. STAFF F..O F,NDATION:
The City Administrator recommends alternative N1.
D_ SUPPORTING DATA:
Planning Commission agenda item written by City Planner, with Planning
Commission recommendations noted.
Planning Commission Agenda - 1017/97
12. Consideration of an application for Rezoning from 1-2 to Planned Unit
Development District to allow mixed uses on a combination of parcels,
Variance from the setback requirements for a loading dock, PUD Permit to
allow construction of a loading dock and phasing of other required
Improvements to a nonconforming building. pplicant: Little Mountain Feed.
(NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Little Mountain Feed has requested approval of the construction of a loading dock on the
south side of its main building. The loading dock would be in violation of the setback
adjacent to the Burlington Northern Railroad, and requires approval from the railroad for
use of some of its right-of-way for access. Due to the mix of uses on this site (including
office, retail, industrial, and warehousing), the most appropriate process is through the
rezoning of the parcel to Planned Unit Development District.
In the PUD District, the underlying Comprehensive Plan manages land use, but
conceivably, any mix of land uses is possible. The use of PUD would also be important
in this case to manage a staged series of site improvements to the property which includes
a number non -conformities. These include uncontrolled site access, minimal landscaping
and buttering, and lack of paving for either retail or industrial traffic. The PUD Zoning
process allows the City to approve expansions to otherwise non-ccnforming land uses, and
negotiate a staging of site improvements designed to bring the parcel into conformance.
and Hgo. The first issue involves the land use itself. The site lies north of the Burlington
Northern tracks, west of Sunnyfresh. There are single family homes on the remainder of
the block. The applicant has indicated that his long term goal is to increase the retailing
portion of the business (as well as the industrial aspects). The City needs to determine
the long-term acceptability of the use at the edge of the City's downtown area. The MCP
Plan suggests that a mix of uses is desirable in the downtown area, particularly retailing
and residential, although some industrial use is expected to remain with Sunnytresh.
The current zoning is 1-2, the City's most intensive industrial district. The PUD zoning
would inter a greater emphasis on the non -industrial use of the site. Moreover, the feed
and pet food aspect of the business is suggestive of a small town in an agriculturally based
economy. As such, the use may be considered appropriate in its current setting. Of
concern would be the impacts on the residential neighborhood which abuts the site. These
impacts could be managed using the PUD permit process.
Varian . Due to the configuration of the site and the nature of the business, the applicant
has stated that the loading dock must be located on the south side of the building as
proposed. This location is in violation of the required 30 toot setback adjacent to the Fifth
Street right-of-way which contains the Burlington Northern tracks. Variances are to be
evaluated on the basis of physical hardship due to the land in question. Presuming that
a loading dock is a critical aspect of the continued use and expansion of the site, the
Planning Commission Agenda - 10!7/97
question would be whether a dock could be located on another portion of the site. The
applicant has stated that other locations would not benefit the business. Moreover, other
locations would likely impact the residential areas to the north and west.
PUD Permit. Under the Zoning Ordinance, a non -conforming use may not be expanded
except to bring it into conformance with the standards in force at the time. The addition
of the loading dock would qualify as an expansion. Therefore, the applicant is required
to upgrade the remainder of the site with the addition of paved parking and circulation
areas, landscaping in all areas not required for circulation or buildings, and bufferyard
treatments adjacent to the residential areas. The applicant has stated that the investment
necessary to accommodate all of the paving and landscaping would be prohibitive. If the
City believes the project is appropriate, it has the discretion to allow the phasing of
improvements under the PUD process.
Some level of improvement should accompany any expansion. At the minimum, we would
suggest paving of the current retail parking portion of the site, and paving of the loading
area which will be uses by the trucks using the new loading dock. In addition, we would
suggest an initial planting of bufferyard landscape materials on the north boundary to
begin screening the activity from the residential areas. The applicant has suggested that
future expansions will include a new building on the west of the site, adjacent to Maple
Street. The retailing activities will be relocated to the new building as this time. The
applicant's investment in paving around the current retail building will not be wasted, since
there will be a reuse of this area for processing and other industrial purposes.
Decision 1. Rezoning of the site from 1-2 to PUD, Planned Unit Development..
Alternative 1. Motion to aporove the rezoning.
Findings. The approval should be supported by findings which demonstrate the
appropriateness of the new zoning district, including the following:
(1) The PUD Zoning District will allow the City to best manage the
Impacts of the proposed use in conformance with the Comprehensive
Plan.
(2) The proposed uses are appropriate in the City's effort to redevelop its
downtown area, as identified in the MCP Plan.
(3) The proposed zoning will not have adverse impacts on the
neighboring land uses.
Alternative 2. Motion to deny the rezoning.
Findings. A motion to deny should be supported by findings which demonstrate the
rezoning's Incompatibility with the Comprehensive Plan, such as the following:
37 56OF 0
Planning Commission Agenda - 10!7/97
(1) Long term industrial use of the property is not compatible with the
redevelopment of the downtown area.
(2) The expansion of the activities on this site would have an adverse
impact on the surrounding neighborhood.
Decision 2. Issuance of a PUD Permit to the subject property, with staged site
improvements to match expansions of the business on the existing site.
Alternative 1. Approval of the PUD Permit to allow the expansion of the loading
dock, without concurrent site improvements. PC
Finding . Approval should be supported by appropriate findings, such as:
(1) Expansion of the business is appropriate, given the proximity to
Sunnyfresh.
(2) The addition of the loading dock is an insignificant expansion, and
should not key the need to provide other site improvements at this
ti me.
Alternative 2. Approval of the PUD Permit to allow the expansion of the loading
dock, with concurrent, staged site improvements.
Findings• Conditional approval should be supported by the following findings:
(1) The PUD Permit process allows the City to manage the eventual
conformance of the site to Ordinance standards.
(2) Encouragement of business expansion in this location outweighs
strict adherence to requirements of Immediate full site improvements.
(3) Future improvements can be required as the business continues to
expand.
Alternative 3. Denial of the PUD Permit.
Findings• Denial should be supported by appropriate findings:
(1) The PUD Permit is an inadequate method to manage the impacts of
the site, and the proposed business expansion.
Decision 3. Variance to permit the construction of a loading dock within the required
setback area adjacent to the Burlington Northern Railroad. f„�, �> t' w
?(- Rd'-°� �,rl
Alternative 1. Approval of the proposed variance. °
Findjngs. Approval of the variance should be supported by appropriate findings
related to hardship and uniqueness, such as the following:
38 '5F-3
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/7/97
(1) There are no feasible alternatives to loading dock location on the
property.
(2) The loading dock is reasonably necessary to permit the continued
viability of the business in this location.
(3) The proposed location of the dock will have the least impact on the
surrounding neighborhood.
Alternative 2. Denial of the proposed variance.
Findings. Suggested findings supporting a denial of the variance would be as
follows:
(1) Expansion of the current use of this parcel is inappropriate in the long
term.
(2) The construction of the loading dock in the proposed location does
not meet the meaning of the term "hardship" due to the possibility of
other dock locations.
(3) The PUD Permit process will not adequately advance the City's
interests in redevelopment of the downtown area, and therefore, the
expansion of the business is inappropriate.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff believes that the land use is an appropriate use of the parcel, given the goals and
objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, and the MCP Downtown Plan in particular. The
PUD Permit process should allow the City to stage improvements to the site, without over-
burdening the applicant with improvement costs early in his business development. Since
Sunnyfresh is likely to be a long term industrial presence in this area, the eventual phasing
in of additional retail on the Little Mountain Feed site would appear to be an appropriate
objective for the City's land use regulation. As a result, we would recommend approval of
the rezoning to PUD, approval of the variance to allow the loading dock, and the PUD
Permit which allows the expansion, but requires paving in the areas of the loading dock
and access, and the current retail customer area, as well as an initial butteryard planting
adjacent to the residential uses north of the current buildings.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A, Area Location
Exhibit B, Site Plan
Exhibit C, Existing Zoning
39 �� 4.
rr i
,�q,�d' � �d �4,�,► 0�' �''��' bra'
� 4
.rte � -.- b��� �_ �� ����'�► �, �i
_r_ _
ExW A Area location
SE - $
I I .
1 � .t, I ��r .r►• w I ,••+� I
dft
wlaINS .a. r�.rl.� 8 Site Plan
H ♦ Y?�I� , r1-► t�K �Y►� •.,�.K ♦h►. � � KY ♦ H K f -►1f � �T►�. M►r r -r+ �� ..
I
�o . • Ip '�0 0 ��� e
.PP
Council Agenda - 10/13/97
Consaideration nf text1
zoning t• 1 MA flightinduRtrial diRtrict : 1 I
hl I : r: 1 1 1 1 ,1 1: 1 l y:: 7r M
a iIntinna: 1 11:.:1 snace
setbackthe :,I I 1111 7 1 'i
Co—Insi1 al
A RFFFRFNrF AND BA •K .RO iND:
See attached report.
B. ALTERNATWE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation as noted in
the attached report by NAC.
2. Motion to deny the request.
r- STAFF F .O MF.NDATION:
The City Administrator recommends alternative #1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Planning Commission agenda item written by City Planner.
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/7/97
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Monticello Mayor and City Council
Monticello Planning Commission
FROM: Stephen Grittman
DATE: August 26, 1997
RE: Monticello - Zoning Ordinance Amendment -
Business Campus District
FILE NO: 191.06-97.
Canakhmdon of an Uplkwitign by the City to amend the Business Camous Distric
by renaming the District and mConsidering the green sawn roeuImments.
A REFFRENCE AND 13ACKGROf �ND
The Industrial Development Committee hes suggested that the City restructum the ourent
Business Campus District in an effort to make the lands within the District more attractive
to development. The IDC has oorle4rded that the lack of industrial development in the BC
zoned areas is attributable, at least in part, to both the perception of the District as
rulMendy, to development and the reality of a concern over buildable areas limited by the
landscaping requirements.
District Name
This issue may be approached In a number of ways. The concept behind this proposal is
to remove, or after, the 'Business' pert of (hs title to make the District sound more
industrial in nature. The options discussed among staff and the IDC have included
changing the SC to '1-3"; changing B -C to '11-1 ", and ronumbering the anrent 1-1 and 1-2
Distrlm to 1-2 and IJ, respectively; and changing the B -C District to'I-1A'.
The 1-3 option would be simple, but could bad to confusion duo to ft fact that the
Ordinance would establish its most restrictive District with the highest number. The
41 SF- l
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/7/97
opposite is more typical. Renumbering the other districts would be more is keeping with
the expected system. However, the reclassification of this much land with such similar
zoning district names could be confusing for both property owner; and City Staff.
The I -1A option would also misorder of the dislrk:M by placing the most restrictive district
between 1-1 and I-2. However, this option does represent the truest picture of the altered
B -C District a slightly changed 1-1 District This is because the land uses world change
little from 1-1 to WA, and except for building materials, little change would be seen in
performance standards. The primary difference between districts would be the
requirement in the I -1A that a percentage of the building be covered with a masonry
material.
Green Space
Current B -C District language requires a 30 percent green space reservation from every
developed parcel. The IDC has proposed that this language be removed. At the time of
the adoption of the B -C, there was a concern that land in the Citys industrial areas would
be underdeveloped, particularly in the areas exposed to the freeway. Since that time, the
City has adopted more extensive landscaping requirements, parbadarly with the bufferyard
ordharroe. As a result, it may be appropriate to consider dropping the percentage green
space requirement, especiagy givers the developmeM pace h the industrial area.
R. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Decision 1. Ordinance amending the title of the Business Campus District
d,4'61
o r'` Altemative 1. Approve the renaming of the B -C, Business Campus District to 1-1 A,
Industrial.
ARemative 2. Approve the renaming of the B -C, Business Campus District to
another name.
Altemativa 3. Deny the ronaming of the B -C, Business Campus District
Decision I Ordinance amending the Business Campus District by changing the Lot
rCo
Coverage
1. rage requirements relating to minimuan rea
landscape a.
o �o BusinessApprove�Campus Dlstrici e elimination of the O �Qe lendsc8pa area fFom the
AfternativeZ, Approve the modiflcatlon of the percerttape landscape area within the
Business Campus Dlstrici.
Alternative 3. Deny the modifieatian of the percentapa landscape area.
42 J47:6_ (.
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/7/97
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
+
Staff stags the 'I -IK nomenclature if the City chooses to rename the Business
Campus District. This Is primarily due to convenience of past zoning references, and
awolding corAnson when dea ft with developed property. The need for the change would
be based upon the recommendation of the Industrial Development Committee.
With regard to the pe enwpe landscape area, Staff is unsure that esher the name of the
district or the landscape reWmements have deterred development conaidenng the
in lustrfel development markK and the fact that the Cir has been actively involved in land
sales in the area. However, the current zoning regulations provide adequate ability to
maintain an attractive industrial area with mirhunal impacts on adjacent properties.
Therefore, the elimination of landscape percentage requirements does not threaten the
City's interest In industrial park development
Exhibit A Ordinance eflrnh ing the peroentage is requtrements.
43 SF . 3
Ordhwee No.
City of Monticello
Wright County, Minneects
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TIRE 10. CHAPTER %4, SECTION 5 (4 OF THE
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO LOT COVERAGE IN THE B -C
AND/OR I -IA ZONINO DISTRICT.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA HEREBY ORDAINS
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
Chapter 15q Section 5 (A] is emended to read as follows:
(A) LOT COVERAGE Them shall be no minimum or maximum lot coverage
requirements in tis district.
Section Z.
This ordinance shall become effective from and altar Its passage and publication.
//a//
EXHIBIT A - Ordinance Amendment
Council Agenda - 10/13/97
Attached you will find a memo from Dan Wilson outlining terms of a
purchase agreement for acquisition of the Monticello RV Center site.
Acquisition is necessary to complete Chelsea Road/Highway 25 realignment.
Motion to accept terms of purchase agreement.
2. Motion to deny approval of terms of purchase agreement.
C- STAFF F. O MF.NDATION:
The City Administrator recommends alternative ql based on the report
provided by Wilson.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Memo from Dan Wilson.
irVW
WILSON DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
'HELPING CITIES AND BUSINESSES GROW
October 9, 1997
MEMO TO: Monticello City Council
FROM: Dan Wilson
RE: RV Center Acquisition- Hwy. 25 Project
Request Purchase Agreement Authorization
We have reached an agreement to purchase the RV Center property from Ralph and
Naomi Hermes for $85,423.18. The rlamng is met for October lb. 1997.
The property was appraised at 5125.0000 before storm damage and $67,000 after the
storm.
Our negations led to a $14000 value before the storm. The $7.000 increase reflected
our adding bark the vacancy factor to the income approach W establiahlag value. Their
point was the lease was with a family member operating the family business with no
periods of vacancy.
From the 'before storm value we need W deduct any insurance proceeds. A
contractor's estimate W repair the damage was $68,221.02. The insurance company will
only pay the $SU71.02 if the damage is actually repaired. If a cash settlement is taken
these is a 20% discount The actual cash settlement was $46,576.82. This hes been
venfied.
Negotiated before atom value $132.000.00
Leas insurance settlement S 46.676.82
City's purchase price $85.423.18
A purchase agreement has been prepared in the amount of $85.423.18. The purchase
agreement form was approved by the City Attorney. Mr. and Mrs. Hennes have
approved it Their Atwmy to currently reviewing it.
Tho plan is W have the aignod purchase agreement st the City Council meeting Monday
evening.
The closing is sot [or October 161h, so that the Hermes can leave for the South. Tho
poswasion date is November 15, 1997, which will give the RV Canter a month to move.
The RV Center relocation claim is a separate transaction. The claim will be
apprommately $27.000. A detailed claim will be prepared far your review.
Requested Action:
City CormrU authorize purchase agreement with cluing of 1415.97.
!"MR
r'
510 C7testnut St., Suite zn Choly, UN SS318
Office: (612) 448.4W PAX; (612) 648.6676 spG I
Council Agenda - 10/13/97
7. Cont4iderationaf an application for \e ,1 1 1\I
1 R-2 figingIn and two family residential)1 permit1 1 1
1 townhouseproject1 1 11
ApplirsknL Monticello •I 1 ,r 1
A REERRF.NCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission conducted the public hearing on this matter and
recommended approval of rezoning after the Country Club scaled back its
original request. The Country Club scaled back its request by withdrawing
its request for rezoning the area directly adjacent to the homes on Club View
Drive. Steve Grittman recommended approval of the scaled back rezoning.
The approval was based on the finding that the development/rezoning was
consistent with the comprehensive plan and that the development would not
block views of the golf course; therefore, the rezoning would not result in a
depreciation in land value.
Area residents are not convinced. They believe that sight lines will be
interrupted sufficiently to reduce value. They are also concerned that the
extra traffic created by the development (120 cars daily) will create problems.
See attached for balance of report.
Copy of Planning Commission item written by City Planner; Letters from
neighbors.
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/7/97
6• Consideration of an application for a rezoning from R-1. Single Family to R -2 -
Single and Two Family Resldential. to permit the dwMalgment of a 14 unit
townhouse prolect under a Planned Untt Develo pmgg Applicant: Monticello
Counly Club. (NAC) Rr /ia�..•��i:va `
A_ REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND c y 'J„,t
Nam
The Monticello Country Club has requested consideration of a rezoning of a portion of
their property which would allow a 14 unit townhouse project adjacent to the golf course.
The site in question is located adjacent to the entrance drive to the clubhouse, and would
require the relocation of an existing maintenance shed. This report is Intended to review
the rezoning only. Pending City action on the zoning, action could be taken at a future
meeting with regard to the piat and Planned Unit Development which would be necessary
to accommodate the project as proposed.
Rezonings are amendments to the Zoning Map, and are evaluated with the following
considerations:
1. Relationship to the Comprehensive Plan
2. The geographical area involved.
3. Whether such use will tend to or actually depredate the area in which it is
proposod.
4. The character of the surrounding area.
S. The demonstrated need for such use.
The neighborhood adjacent to the area includes an eight unit townhouse project, known
as Monticello Country Club Court, and a series of single family parcels known as Club
View Terrace. The Comprehensive Plan for the area calls for a continuation of the existing
land use pattern. Tho existing townhouses are developed at a density of about 5.0 units
per acre. The single family lots are each about 20,000 square feet in area. The proposed
townhouse project would be at a density of about 7.0 units per acre. The townhouse We
of development is not necessarily out of character, although the density Is higher than the
surrounding neighborhood.
Of particular concern in reviewing the criteria listed above would be Number 3,
dopreciation of the area. Both tho townhouses and the single family homes are likely to
depend on the view of the golf course for a portion of their percolvod value. Although
proximity to the course would not be changed under the current proposal, the views
enjoyed by tho neighbonng dwellings would be significantly altered. Moreover, the accoss
to the now townhouses Is proposed to be a private driveway shared with tho Golf
Clubhouso. The only exposure to the public street would be the narrow driveway which
currently serves the Clubhouse alono.
7--/
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/7/97
In reviewing the proposal against the required criteria for amendments from the Zoning
Ordinance, the chwacter of the surrounding area is relatively low density residential, with
a mix of single family and attached townhouse development The townhouse styles
proposed in the current application would be acceptable, however a lower density would
be more in keeping with the current development style, as recommended by the
Comprehensive Plan. Finally, there is a significant issue with regard to the Ordinance
requirement that an amendment to the Zoning not depredate the area. On the reasonable
assumption that view of the Golf Course Is an important component of the value of the
existing dwellings, allowing the project in the area proposed would interfere with the view,
and thus the values, of the area. This issue would disqualify the proposal for
consideration for rezoning.
Afternatave 1. Approve the Rezoning from R-1 to R-2 to accommodate the
development of a townhouse Planned Unit Development as proposed
by the Monticello Country Club.
Findings. A decision to approve the proposed rezoning should be
supported by dear findings cf fact. Suggested findings would include
the following:
(1) The proposed zoning is consistent with land uses In the area.
(2) The proposed zoning would result In development which is
needed in the community.
(3) The proposed zoning Is not likely to depreciate the area in
which It Is located.
Alternative 2. Dony the Rezoning from R-1 to R-2.
Findlnos. A decision to deny the proposed rezoning should be
supported by dear findings of fact Suggested findings would include
the following:
(1) The location of the proposed rezoning would tend to
dopnxmde values of the neighboring properties since it would
Interfere with the views which are Important components of
thoso values.
(2) The rezoning could result in a development which Is more
dense than that encouraged by the Comprehensive Plan.
Planning Commission Agenda — 10/7/97
rau
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION S�d� "`�`rA"�f
Staff does not recomtitnend approval of the proposed rezoning- Although B1e general land
use type and building style would not conflict with other area land uses, the location of the
proposed development would Interfere with the views of the neighborhood. It is a
reasonable assumption that those views are an important component of value !n this
particular case. If the Country Club can find other land in the area which is serviceable
and mlrthn¢es this interference, a rezoning may be appropriate, presuming a compatible
density pattern.
Fidtibit A,, Zoning Map of Area
E,M M B, Proposed Site Plan
7-3
znc�----r PREMM MABY�L.�IT alo:
- . � ��` - TOWIVHOMES •• �=mow;., ..
CiRE�N y ��r. r r
.
CITY OF MOlVTIClIJ O. WRIGIII, COUNTY, MN
� er. ? r' t!! ' .Ti
�•
Ito—
\
vktrm wr
LyS.';i" L1L.. � l��f �.r�' rlwnl .r rlr,n � MrMw T Mw rw I wr.
wr M.n �.•
WOW,
01/01/1996 00:01 6122951833 MATT STROEMEP P4 -.,E 01
4#1: Genes
� /o10 -s' CSI F �u�tc ill.
1Rif 44 -of : /4 zvru'y o ,� fp l r' cok -"Ae"7y .
// f 'Z� J4�,oewwC - 5 /R tt OK✓ O��os. Yorl
TD 79(t e -e Zo ✓vm% -W /A --.r
Frah RI - Qa . 4,), �.•� f �r,�ss
o � .5� 11 � � pk. %!s �+Ce. �w►� 7�%� //arc
Su��t.f�iO✓1 Ot' 14AS QG110101 Au
Okr ✓!cam le— VA 141C. .
'•ice.
7-49
1201 Gott Course Road, Unit 1207
Monticello, MN 55362
TO. MONTICELLO CRY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: Harry Walsh. homeowner
Onte: October 9,1997
RE: Country Club Application to rezone f rom At to R2
DearCouncilMembers:
WinstonChurchill described city parks as'the lungs of a city." Thesamecouldbe
laid of city golf courses. Although I'm not agolf er, I appreciate the fact that golf
,oursec give us some protection against city sprawl, and provide us with an
opport unity to commune wrt h nature. For that reason, I invested in a home adjacent
to the Golf Course. I'm saddened to think that one of our "city lungs' is about to
„ndergo invasive surgery.
, its stated nt the Pinnnmg Commission's meeting, the bottom-line is money, then
it will be difficult for you as Council to reject the promise of $1 million plus for the City
coffers. Our only hope is that you will have enough poetry in your hearts to vote
,against clutter and leave us our dream,
hope you will reject the Planning Commission's recommendation. a Commission that
Bluffed off thefeelings of residents like myself with shallow comments like: 'we know
he:: lou feel, but.........."
I'm counting on Council to understand how we feel -- without the 'but.'
Thank you.
Harry A. Walsh, homeowner
1-7
Oct. 9, 1997
Monticello Council Member,
As a property owner on Club View Drive, I feel it necessary to make my objections clear
in regards to the development of townhomes, off of the golf course driveway.
The driveway as it now stands, is less than ideal to begin with. Having a business with
substantial traffic entering and exiting in the shadows of a freeway overpass, is not the best
situation. In the past, on numerous times, I have alerted the got course and the police of speed
violations along Club View Drive. Unfortunately these speeding cars were using Club View as a by.
pass around school buses stopped on #39, to either get to the course, or return to #39 ahead of
the bus. I am afraid that this type of situation will only increase with the addition of townhomes
using a private driveway.
While I consider my family to be very good neighbors to the got course itself, and certainly
want them ;o profit in business, I also have other objections. In this particular area, ground water is
knocking at our doors quite often. When it rains heavily, drainage is a problem from the current
parking area of the goff course, and that flow of water, in general, heads to where the townhome
project is stated to be. If the council decides to go ahead with the proposal, I ask that they are
extra careful in the planning of drainage for this particular reason. All of the homes on Club View
Drive sit perilously close to ground water level. Paving paradise can only increase the drainage
problem that we already have.
Years ago, when we were first in our home, I asked the course board what would happen d
the got course were to go broke. What would the disposal of land be, etc.? At that time, I was told
by numerous people involved with the course, that I should never have to worry about d. 'The golf
course could never be developed into housing; with the type of loan we have, it could only be
dedicated as a park or recreation area' I am now told that simply is not true - which doesn't affect
your council decision anyways - but I feel the council should be informed on the feelings of its
constituents. This particular remark from golf personnel, influenced the positioning of additions we
have made to our home, as well as decking. The same is true with the neighbors lying west of our
home. No one would ever build a home that caters to a view, knowing, or even suspecting that
someday, the view would vanish.
I also was very disturbed to find that Dick Frie, chair of the planning commission, conducted
the business of the townhome matter to the public last Tuesday evening. The conflict of interest
between Mr. Frie and the zoning of this particular situation should have been loud enough for all to
hear. Although, he abstained from voting, on the suggestion of one of the public, I strongly feel
that he should not have conducted the meeting, that he slanted nearly every comment, and I was
embarrassed that our zoning committee let this happen. In the past, I have noticed many tunes that
councilmen step aside when they are influenced erther financially, by relatives or by common reason
concerning particular agenda items. I would strongly urge the council, and zoning commission to be
more careful in the future. Connections are strong in smaller communities.
One more consideration that the council need to look at: The West Prairie Townhomes. With
using tax increment financing on these particular townhones, is it not in the best interest to get
this large townhome development going and sold, before adding competition, at a lower cost,
across the golf course? And is putting Mr. Markkngs 84ownhome development in jeopardy the right
decision? There are still two to be sold, and the folks in the other sic, are not at all happy, after
buying a prestigious townhome on the golf course, only to have neighbors take away their view for
a mere $125,000. A concern for a quality neighbor is also important to all of us in this
neighborhood.
KAW "A
With all the parties needing a profit out of this new townhorne project, what will the final
homes be like? Rumor mip' tells me that the course will get $25,000 per tormhome, a realtor will
also get a cut and certainly a builder doesn't build for frothing. What is the actual value of these
towmhomes? Should they be sitting next to $160,000 townhomes?
to closing, I ask the council to carefully consider asking the golf course to reconsider the
location of thew townhome project. M they are head strong to raise money for a new clubhouse, I
ask that you suggest they find a more viable place within their 80 acres to place the townhomes,
that win not devalue the current properties, or add traffic to an already less than ideal situation.
Thank you for considering our commends.
Alan and Susie Wojchouski
1111 Club Yrew Drive,
Monticello, Mn 295.2923
7-9
u
Monticello Council N.emher
Oct. 9 1997
This letter pertains to the rezoning of golf course
property from r-1 to r-2. Being a property owner, the
1st home built when they needed someone to get th pro-
ject started. I was to buy a lot, which I did, with the
understanding that home of certain value so as to en-
courage future homes to be built within that price.range.
Nov they are planning to build townhobses id the ;&ngs'bf
$125,000.00 which will effect the value of the buildings -
along Co. road 39. The ten homes built on 39 are all in
the higher price.
It was suggested at board meeting Oct. 7th that when
you buy a lot on the golf course, you are not buying a
view, if that were the case, vhy would a news item re-
port say that we could expect higher taxes on golf course
lots & river lots Someone must assure that the view
must be worth something .To the hoards credit they did
say 'hat the people who built on the 10 lots should
receiie consideration but we wonder how long that will
last if the board runs into financial problems.
Another concern that I have is that nore than course
in our area are having financial problems and I would
hate to get into a position where we would have to asses
the members to meet our obligations
Gone & Ann Fair
1119 clubview Jr.
Montlllo, Minn. 55302
7--/0
e5h9, io /"t
IW,11l w./d -r-G.,✓�-/-.,/ a ... fs �i tcz ..✓ /� l�J o�
n, //,7J✓/,.G// %J.,�.y el-/
ColwaY �u.,�..+rio�aes. .i.nl��
1 .✓A� The �e.atdl �l/Ntrrs�•c (.1-.-i•,
ON We c�.I 1�.•r cr��-d.....df� �.N7 W,•/� J�.....r
� ,! •� i -7. Zyw ai el 7if C/. b 1."//%au..
oK sc,� �oY.a . a�..p �e rye /..iw�, 7S �v.��+•rlt ntvtN✓¢.
70.E ale cl-, /r// y (./✓L. /21K UaI+ /fl! lJ�NH w/, 7� -41
6d �%%OnjCs if?MSaaA i�1C,r �,SA�•�G7.►//r e{ 7�P lat`l.
il�r�I rP,�eafe� .� ifoit9 ,✓o Ca//j• IT ../ae ...4 7o "d3
r.p.acf,ow of 74o/r'/I/eq� 7-4.61 2 rwas�d/� 1o�a� /DAIll
.*//..Ii
iiL//le.l
-7
(�nn ; 00 D OJt1. oo) (I✓IAI. M'J Iy /-�,f/lf ��✓G.lV'�,.lPY7 O//T COJM{Y� ./C,IN {)
`olu�� T..>.. J1oJse• �SSeG.d/,.N �wa yN177 drt Nb/ eSrb
r /
.j;.I;. cLe. %d 6✓, /�..jy Q�GN„yJo NllwX'f char
wq1 1w, KPf6%Yl ✓I'►i 71., lle.,.s a/..7 0.6 Ve., z r
,/003 .:/10,4 a�y� I•�l %'lai 2 U;// qse 9/l 1/t91 / •,Huss /t
//!�I•o/fG� /pry .N✓t1/,•pf•P O��ocf w�• �4�t �Oo•y(� ?e.Lrllo�iv�
Q/«y .✓%/� Y4o I1rvY� ID/ /Prea S n,.d .wr wo y (f.o.a rJ /I �JaP.
We 4yress cu•yo 14jlwn/�o7' /j tr,r/if/i•vdlr Co.I�v.1nl ✓-./
e/ek" .IO✓t
71,t ¢lets a -A L
Z✓ L' �/1s.✓� .- .ZOIC '70f Co -e",/ 7� fJl.�rf.IC 7�t r./1Y
.v/r �y_.! '7';f /�Mo�oG'✓ Jif 4e p✓.r/ alwi-S�o ie rPPaay
�'l•6 to.,/Y7APN f.ii✓e.711e,- d,iI ,:'y rn �e'A /7k
Are4 -Me �/ P,-*t(a.,..• 41 ila Tr.,,., I%UjW%. :Z sffi,,oa St:.,.r)/I
S.�rs✓ �.w %a!/t ills Fo�a67' u.LJ�/�A ruo.d r�Lu r3 !✓6m,/le%
Date: October 9, 1997
City Council member:
On Oct. 7, 1997 we attended apublic heating called by the planning
commission_ We heard concerns pertaining to the proposed golf course
townhouse development. Some of the concerns that were expressed from
adjacent property owners were lose of property value, loss of view, and
increased amount of traffic on a narrow road.
We feel that as owners on the golf course our concern were not given
consideration by the planning commission, as a matter of fad, it seems like
their decision was a done deal before the meeting. So why even have a
rtteeting7 It was pretty obvious that special groups can manage to sway
decisions whether they are right or not.
We realize that a view might not be important to everyone, but, that was
why we made a decision to build here, and yes, we did pay for a view, and
our idea of a view is not the back of townhouses in the middle of a golf
course.
We also litre to see businesses develop and grow but, we wonder, if
perhaps the owners of the golf course looked at all of their options, with
evetyrme's concern, in mind, and we !snow there are other options.
Sincerely:
Alois Stangler
Alice, Stangler
Lot 2
1117 O;lubvtew Dr.
Ntoritrcello, Non 3.546O
7-/Z
Council Agenda - 10/13/97
Connideration of purchasing internet web site services- (J.0.)
A REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The City has recently received two proposals for web site service, one from
the Monticello Times and the other from Cloud Communications, Inc.,
operated by Steve Andrews.
Enclosed in your packet is a proposal from the Monticello Times along with
various web pages provided as a taste of what the City web site could become.
The proposal allocates $1,750 for pages already developed and envisions a
like expenditure to complete the site. Total annual cost is $7,700. Also
provided is a proposal by Steve Andrews, which costs $6,000 annually.
Development of an internet site is on our list of mandatory work projects;
however, we have been somewhat slow to capitalize on the use of the internet
due to other priorities. Accepting either proposal would quickly advance the
City to a higher level. Please note that full use of the site and achievement of
the potential of the internet will require a concerted effort by staff to find
creative ways to consistently disseminate information via the site. We are
somewhat concerned about purchasing a service that we may not be equipped
to support.
Funds necessary to support this effort would need to be drawn from reserves
for both 1997 and 1998, as specific internet expenses have not been budgeted.
R ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to accept or modify and accept the Monticello Time proposal
and direct staff to support development of the web site accordingly.
2. Motion to accept or modify and accept the Cloud Communications
proposal and direct staff to support development of the web site
accordingly.
3. Motion to deny or delay acceptance until staff is confident that we will
be able to provide full support to development and maintenance of web
site data.
4. Motion to direct staff to prepare a Request for Proposals for web site
development services.
The proposal submitted by Steve Andrews arrived on Friday;
therefore, we have not had sufficient time to analyze and compare the
two proposals. Furthermore, we do not have sufficient experience
Council Agenda - 10/13/97
necessary to adequately compare the cost and benefits of each option.
Council may want to request that staff develop a Request for Proposals
form, which would allow us to compare alternatives using a common
format and would open up the process to other providers.
C. STAFF RF ,O F.NDATION:
It is recommended that Council request that City staff prepare and distribute
an RFP for web site services.
Once a web site provider is selected, City staff will need to develop systems
and processes over time supporting distribution of information via the
internet. Our goal will be to provide information that is already available in
a format that can be placed on the internet with minimal staff effort. An
example would be placing the newsletter on-line or placing Council, Planning
Commission, HRA, Parks, and Police Commission minutes on-line. This
would be done by simply providing the WP file to the provider.
Complete records of "hits" by users would be maintained to help us determine
if the site is being used sufficiently to justify the expense.
Copy of Monticel_ln Time proposal and web site, Copy of proposal from Cloud
Communications, Inc.
2fW
MONTICELLO TIMES & SHOPPER
116 E. River St. • Monticello, MN 55362 •612-295-3131 • FAX 612-295-3060
E-mail: montimes@means.net • Website: http://www.montitimes.com
City of Monticello Website Proposal
A complete Monticello City online website offers endless possibilities and benefits. The site we've
been developing is designed to serve the community in a number of ways. A city website will provide
information and a means of communication between current, past and potential city residents, snow-
birds, city businesses, businesses interested in locating to this area, and the city staff.
It is a resource center with information about the city, including city departments, meetings and
agendas, calendar of events, special projects, city announcements, maps, industrial development,
Chamber of Commerce, Monticello Community Partners and some historical background as well.
Investment by the city into this website will move Monticello to a new technological level, putting
the power of the interact to work for this community. Here's a breakdown:
Website Development ($3500)
• Design to date, $1750, to be billed Nov. 1, 1997
• Further development of site (approximately 40-50 hours), $1750, to be billed Jan. I
Monthly Fees ($350)
This monthly fee would include:
• Regular updates of the city site for one year (with up to four hours of design/developmcni time
per month)
• Administration/maintcnance of the city site for one year (including regularly backups of the city
site)
• Up to 25 megs of space on our web server (current site is approximately 7 megs)
• Registration of the Monticello City domain name with top search engines
• Link—in the form of a banner ad—to the Monticello city site from a Monticello, MN site
• Link (banner ad) from the Monticello Times site
• Link from the Ycllow Pages site
• Linking privileges for businesses/industries within the city site to other sites hosted by the
Monticello Times
• Business and city staff E-mail links from within the city site
• One chat or forum option on the city site
Up to five e-mail addresses
We would have the City of Monticello up by Nov. 1, 1997 (though some portions of the site may be under
construction for a month or so). Total investment by the city for one year would he $7,700.
This is a great opportunity for the City of Monticello to get online with an informative, useful site that can be
accessed 24 hours a day, 365 days of the year. Internet visibility gives Monticello great marketing opportunities
along extensive communication options for the city staff, city council and residents of Monticello.
6-
Jeff O'Neil
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
Dear Jeff.
10/09/97
I understand that the City will be having an Internet Web site developed. 1 am interested
in developing such a site and have prepared the following proposal for review by you.
Rick Wolfsteller and the City Council.
For 56000.00 we will develop a Web site for the city of Monticello and deploy it for
twelve months on the Internet. Included in the fee are the following items:
G 20 Megabytes of data storage capacity on an advanced capability server
Z Domain transfer services
{ 1000 mb of data transfer per month
4 Web server connected via TI connections, one hop from the MCI Backbone
4 Detailed, real-time Web usage statistics
%- CGI support
0 Java®, Java Script®. Shockwave® support
We will point up to 50 e-mail addresses to appropriate existing accounts from the Web
site for city staff, commissions. Council and anyone designated by staff as an e-mail
recipient.
Sixty (60) hours of development time is provided to initially set up the site. This includes
meetings with city staff as necessary to determine content and policies regarding the site.
After the initial sixty hours, an additional two (2) hours per week is included to keep
information current. Beyond this, any additional time required is billed at rate of 528.50
per hour. Free estimates arc provided for any special projects requiring additional time.
It is our belief that original material produced by us and paid for by the City of
Monticello W- ongs in the public domain, provided that is the wish of City Administration
and the Council. In other words, we relinquish any rights to original material that we
produce on the site to the City of Monticello.
?-;I,
We will not restrict access to nor attempt to restrict "linking" to the Monticello Web site.
�s Instead, we will actively promote and encourage the use of the site and encourage people
to link to it.
Some of the basic items we will build into the site include:
4 Council members directory; City directories; Composition and an overview of various
boards and commissions (EDA. IDC, Parks Commission, HRA, Planning Commission
the Library Board. Police Commission etc.)
* Advanced community and economic demographics including data from Minnesota
Department of Trade and Economic Development
O A community calendar plays important part in keeping the community connected.
We'll give you a very good calendar, one that people will actually use!
O School, church, parks and recreation information, as well as community organization
lists will be available on the site.
0 We are able to provide digital photographs for the Web site as well.
Additional items to consider adding to the site include:
0 City meeting agendas, meeting minutes and basic city documents that can be
downloaded from the city site.
O Updates front City liall on various issues and topics.
%? Statutes could be placed on the site as well. For example, people would be able to look
up the snowmobile ordinance on the Web site. There could even be a link to a map
showing the proper route to pass through town on a snowmobile.
I'm sure you have ideas on information you would like to see posted as well.
1 look forward to working with you and city staff on this exciting project. Our rates are
very competitive and we will deliver the content to make this a useful and valuable site
for residents, potential residents and the business community alike!
Since
Steve Andrews
Cloud Communications, Inc.
1005 East River St
Monticello, MN 55362
9603
Council Agenda - 10/13/97
9. Corodderation of an offerJ purchnse vacant parcel, J ,,,,:
office
A. R .F .R .N F AND BACKGROUND:
In July, Mr. Charles Ehlen (Cinco Corporation), owner of the post office
facility, had inquired about purchasing the vacant parcel owned by the City
behind Fred's Auto Repair on Linn Street for the purpose of providing an
additional access driveway to the post office property. The Council was
agreeable to selling the property and authorized an appraisal to be obtained
for negotiation purposes. An appraisal was obtained from R.A. Fields &
Associates that placed the estimated market value for this parcel somewhere
between $25,000 and $30,000. Recognizing that the property would likely
have more value to an adjacent property owner, I believe that is why the
appraiser established a range for negotiation purposes.
Mr. Ehlen indicated that the district post office was very interested in the
potential of a second access and appears willing to modify their lease
arrangement with Cinco Corporation if this property can be acquired by
Mr. Ehlen. As a result, Mr. Ehlen has submitted an offer of $24,000 for the
purchase of this parcel subject to a few conditions. Mr. Ehlen would like all
of the trees and tree stumps removed on the property and is requesting that
appropriate fill be brought into the property to establish a grade that a
parking lot can be built on. In addition, Mr. Ehlen was aware that the City
still controlled a 1241 strip of land that was originally established for a
driveway access off of Locust Street to the post office, and he would like to
have that property also deeded to the Cinco Corporation. I believe the intent
of requesting the 1241 strip of land is that this may give Mr. Ehlen some
negotiating leverage with Mr. Brad Larson in possibly reopening the other
access from Locust Street that was closed off by Mr. Larson.
Although the offer is reasonably close to our appraised value of $25,000 to
$30,000, I'm not sure whether the City should also be required to remove
trees, stumps, and prepare the property for Mr. Ehlen's use its a parking lot
and driveway access. Possibly if the proposed purchased price was in the
mid• to upper -end of our appraisal value, spending time by the City crows to
remove trees and stumps and bring in fill malerinl may be more appropriate;
but with the offer being at the lower end of our appraisal value, I would
suggest the City simply sell the land as is without any additional
improvements. As far as the 124 strip of land is concerned, this parcel
should have been exchanged by the City and Mr. Brad Larson for a new
driveway access as originally agreed to by the developers with the HRA years
ago. If the City or HBA do not intend to enforce their developers agreement,
the parcel of land does the City no good and could just as well be transferred
to the post office landlord.
Council Agenda - 10/13/97
1. Accept the offer to purchase the vacant parcel for $24,000 with the
requirement that the City also remove all trees and stumps and bring
in proper fill material to bring the property up to grade for parking lot
construction. This alternative would also include transferring
ownership of the 12 -ft strip of land off of Locust Street as part of the
deal.
,/2. Agree to accept $24,000 as the sale price for the property without any
other contingennncie's or requirements for tree removal or fill material by
the City. W�(1x0 t 1 }' ST J CC1 0.5 t -
3. Reject the offer but propose a counteroffer.
From a development standpoint, I think the addition of a second access to the
post office off of Linn Street would be very beneficial for the public and will
provide safer ingress and egress to the post office. As far as the sale terms
aro concerned, I would recommend that the property simply be sold as is
without the City being involved in development for parking lot or driveway
purposes. Since the 12 -ft strip of land does not appear to have any benefit to
the City, maybe it would be appropriate to transfer this parcel to the post
office landlord for their use.
Cinco Corporation offer; Appraisal cover sheet.
CINCO CORPORATION
2M N. 15th Street. Suite C
PO. N es
56
SL ud. CbMN 56302
T*p!ww.. (612) 252.5889
September 19. 1997
Rick Woltsteller
Citta .administrator
C4 ty He 1 I
Monticello MN 33392
Dear Mr. Woltsteller:
A3 t have indicated to you in previous conversations. the Postal
Service seems amenable to considering implementation of the new
exit si`te,in the postal parking lot and that would necessitate
ptirchasing the land the City owns behind the Post Office. 1 have
indicated to them 1 would discuss with the City the purchase of
LJ the property and at this point. would request that a six-month
option 'be granted to se to purchase the property and that would
then Give me time to conclude an agreement with the Postal
Service and start immediately in the spring to develop the
parkins lot and an exit lane on the property,.
I am, prepared to offer 921,000 tar the property but would request
that this include removal of all the trees and tree stumps and
bring the property up to a proper grade with appropriate fill su
that a parking lot can be established. i also request that the
purchase price would include the 12 -toot strip the City owns.
located between the Motealf-Larson property and the Postal
Survien Property.
1 would be happy to most with you to discuss the otter and make
any clarit'ications in the offer you feel would be necessary.
We have discussed previously the safety hazards present with t_he
closing of the exit lane through the Metcalt-Larson property and
1 feel at this point the aost expeditious solution, to the problem
is to simply purchase the City's property and not get involved
9.,/
z
Rick WoUste'lter
September 19. 1.997
Pane 2
iu - urolonned le" i battle with Nr. Larson, which would only
,eia> further the solnlion to the parking—exit problem.
iin,:rrely.66, , P �vtg
tom^ �,
Charles P. 6hlen. M.D.
CPF.lhjb
U
R.A. FIELD S ASSOCIATES 612 767 6931 P.BI
MARKET VALUE APPRAISAL
o1 the
vacant Raw Commercial Land in Monticello
at
xxx Linn Street
Monticello, Minnesota
in
Wright County
Minnesota
1
BY
R. A. Field 6 Associates
Mark R. Schwab
Licanoe 120005641
so of
August 1, 1997
9--3
R.A. FIELD t ASSOCIATES 612 767 6921
CERTIFICATIONI
I certify that, to the beat of my knowledge and belief: (1) the
statements of fact contained in this report are true and
correct. (2) the reported analyses, opinions and conclusions are
limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions
and are my personal, unbiased professional analyses, opinions
and conclusions. (3) I have no present or prospective interest
in the property that is the subject of thin report and I have
no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties
involved. (4) my compensation is not contingent upon the
reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that
favors the cause of the client, the 4ount of the value
estimate, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the
occurrence of a subsequent event. (5) my analyses, opinions and
conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared,
in conformity with the uniform Standards of Professional
Appraisal Practice. (6) I have made a personal inspection of the
property that is the subject of this report and photos of the
subject property and of the street scene are attached. (7) no
one provided significant professional assistance to the person
signing this report.
ESTIMATE OF VALUEI
By virtue of my investigation and analysis I have formed the
opinion that the *as -is' value of the subject property, as of
August 1, 1997, which is the date of my inspection, lies within
the range of fromi
$ 25,000 to $ 30,000
Respectfully submitted,
R. A. Field i Associates
Mark R. Schwab
Certified General
Real Property Appraiser
Liceneo/20005641
Council Agenda - 10/13/97
A RFFFRENCE AND BA .K .RO IND:
The Monticello Police Commission previously met to discuss the speed limits
and enforcement procedures currently existing along Broadway, especially in
the areas of Pinewood Elementary and the high school. As you may recall,
Ms. Nina Barker of 406 East Broadway had appeared before the Council to
raise a number of concerns over the placement of speed limit signs and the
non-existence of school zones near the high school and elementary school.
During the discussion of Broadway, the commission members also reviewed a
letter received from then Superintendent Sheldon Johnson, in which he
again had requested that the City consider the establishment of a four-way
stop sign at the intersection of School Boulevard and Fallon Avenue near the
Little Mountain Elementary School. Currently, School Boulevard is
considered a collector street and slop signs are placed along Fallon Avenue at
School Boulevard. In early January 1996, the City Council did review a
traffic report that was prepared by the Wright County Sheriffs Department
concerning speed and traffic controls along School Boulevard near this
intersection. The report had recommended the establishment of a lower
speed limit near the school when children are present, and it also had
supported the instillation of a four-way stop sign at this intersection. At
that time, the majority of the Police Commission members also supported the
installation of a four-way stop sign. The Council action in 1996 was to post
the speed limit at 30 mph from Fallon Avenue to County Road 118 when
children were present but did not recommend the installation of a four-way
stop sign at this location.
The majority of Police Commission members again recommended that the
City Council consider installing stop si{,ms at this intersection in light of the
increasing residential housing development that's occurring in the area,
including the future phases of Klein Farms 3rd and 4th Additions. The
commission members felt that additional traffic control mechanisms will be
necessary to enable children to safely cross School Boulevard to reach the
elementary and other schools in the area.
The Police Commission had originally planned on bringing their
recommendation for stop signs to the Council in May of 1997 but delayed
their request to analyze additional information concerning pathways and
sidewalks being proposed in the Klein Farms 3rd and 4th Addition phases.
Some of this information concerning future sidewalks was not available at
the time the Police Commission originally made their recommendation, but
the proposed sidewalks along the south side of School Boulevard only seemed
Council Agenda - 10/13/97
to enhance the commission's original concern that pedestrian traffic will be
focused to the Fallon Avenue and School Boulevard intersection, and safety
for crossing to the elementary school is still a concern. It was noted that with
the future development of the Lions Park at this intersection, more
pedestrian traffic will occur, and the commission members questioned
whether one school crossing that exists from the Cardinal Hills development
across School Boulevard to the elementary school will he sufficient in the
future.
Consulting City Planner Steve Grittman also prepared a preliminary
proposed pedestrian circulation plan for this area that will he refined in the
future as part of the comprehensive park plan he is working on. Initial
indications are that it is the planner's recommendation also that a stop sign
may be needed in the future at this Fallon Avenue/School Boulevard
intersection to provide safe crossing for pedestrian traffic.
Although a brief informal survey was conducted by a deputy sheriff a year -
and -a -half ago along School Boulevard, no formal study by a traffic engineer
has been done in this area concerning the appropriate locations of stop signs.
It should be noted that School Boulevard was always planned to be a
collector through street that would eventually be continuous from
Highway 25 to County Road 118. Originally, the Wright County Engineer
had been agreeable to even placing a stop sign on County Road 117
(Oakwood Drive) that would have made School Boulevard a through street
the entire distance. At the request of Commissioner Pat Sawatzke, County
Road 117 did not have stop signs installed immediately after the construction
of School Boulevard, but Mr. Sawatzke had indicated his support for stopping
traffic on 117 once we could show that School Boulevard had more traffic
than County Road 117. In other worde, it has always been planned that
School Boulevard would be a continuous non-stop thoroughfare, and it still
may he premature to propose stop signs on School Boulevard near Fallon
Avenue in the absence of any traffic engineer report indicating it is required.
It may be more appropriate to simply review the location of an appropriate
crosswalk across School Boulevard that would give all children reasonable
direct. access to the school and possibly additional warning devices on Fallon
Avenue to warn of an impending stop sign at School Boulevard.
Another reason why the Council may want to use a traffic engineer to study
School Boulevard is that they could also review the traffic congestion at the
intersection of County Road 117 and School Boulovard as part of an overall
review. From an accident standpoint, it's very likely that there are more
accidents occurring at School Boulevard and County Road 117 rather than it
being a problem at Fallon Avenue and School Boulevard. The Public Works
Director has received a request from citizens wanting the City to do another
15
Council Agenda - 10/13/97
traffic speed study along School Boulevard now that additional residential
development has occurred with the Mein Farms 3rd and 4th developments.
If a traffic speed study is requested from MN/DOT, it is likely this would take
six months to a year to complete because of the time requirement it takes to
get MN/DOT to schedule these studies. The last speed study conducted by
MN/DOT indicated that 45 mph was an appropriate speed for this road, but
that could change now that additional residential development is occurring.
B. ALT . NATN . ACTION :
1. Council could direct the Public Works Director to install a four-way
stop sign at Fallon and School Boulevard as recommended by the
Police Commission and at the request of the School Superintendent.
2. Council could request that a traffic engineer review the area in
question before installing any additional traffic devices.
3. Do not make any changes at this time.
f:. STAFF F.CO MFNDATION:
As 1 noted, the majority of the Police Commission members and the School
Superintendent had again requested that the City Council consider a four-
way stop at this intersection. From a public works standpoint, the School
Boulevard construction was always intended to be a through street, and it
may be appropriate for the Council to have a traffic engineer again review
this intersection before simply installing a stop sign without any review.
While I certainly realize the recent bus accident has made everyone
concerned for the safety of school children, I believe the Council should have
supporting data for the installation of stop signs rather than simply relying
on emotional appeals. If the Council feels that there is merit in the
placement of stop signs at this location, I would recommend a traffic engineer
be hired to do a study first.
Letter from School District Superintendent; Police Commission minutes of
4/30 and 10/1/97; Minutes of 1/8/96 Council action; Proposed pedestrian
circulation plan from City Planner.
16
BOARD OF EDUCATION
Nancy C—ano
Choir
Dennis Suadbeck
Clark
Lea Sloneker
Vico Chair/Trsosurer
N—V Spivak
D,rector
Chip Bauer
Drac:or
Daryl Rachbaeh
Duactor
ADMINISTRATION
Michael Benedetto
Asti. Supinnstrucnon
612.295-5161
Richard Wales
Buvne" ana
Mgar
612.295.5184
.ynden Senlu
Nigh Schad Prmapal
612495.2913
Pam Ringstad
Assl Nigh School Principal
612.295.2917
Komll Gense r
Made School PnnclpW
612.295-5163
Kay Douglas.
Elsmontary Pnnapol
612.295-5164
Joel Lundin
Asti Elamentory Pnnopal
6122295.5164
Druce NovaY
Elemonlary Pnnapd
612495•"94
wimom white
Acbvito6 Duoctor
612 295.2917
Paul Zemke
Spo al EAuoaon Dractor
612.295.5165
Duane Gates
Community Educabon Du
612.295 2915
Candoce Ge"It
Ant Commurury Cow IN,
612295 2915
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 882
Sheldon D. Johnson, Superintendent
Telephone (612) 295.5184
Fax (612) 295.2330
P. O. BOX 697
MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA 55362
April 23, 1997
Mr. Rick Wolfstelle r
City of Monticello Administrator
250 E. Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
Dear Mr. Wolfsteller:
As you might recall, two or three years ago the
intersection of Fallon Avenue and School Boulevard was
changed from a four way stop to a two way stop. At
that time I, along with the Board of Education of
Independent School District No. 882, Mr. Novak as
Elementary Principal at Little Mountain Elementary
School, together with the City of Monticello Police
Commission, all recommended that the four way stop
remain at this intersection. There were also some
speed limit issues that were addressed and we did
prevail upon the Monticello City Council to post
portions of School Boulevard at 45 mph speed limit
during school hours. We were not successful, however,
in prevailing upon the powers that be to keep the
Intersection as n four way atop rather than allowing
thru traffic on School Boulevard.
With recent attention drawn to intersections such as
this as being particularly hazardous. I as
Superintendent of Schools would like to go on record
calling a second time for this intersection to be
reinatated ns a four way stop. I have been told of
numerous close calla involving Little Mountain
Elementary studento with care, trucks, etc. that are
not, stopping appropriately on Fallon Avenue and, with
no stop signs on School Boulevard, the entire
Intersection becomes an extremely hazardous situation
for nil concerned, Therefore, I would hope that stop
'o _ I
V
signs could be reinstalled on School Boulevard so that we do not
have east -west traffic traveling through this intersection
without stopping.
Please give this matter your most careful consideration so that
we can avoid potential accidents and injuries in the future.
Sincerely, 1
/S. Johnson
Superintendent of Schools
SDJ/ja
cc: Wayne Fingalson, Wright County Highway Engineer