The URL can be used to link to this page

Planning Commission Agenda 07-07-1998 . . . AGEN A REGULAR MEETING - MONTICEL 0 PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, July 7, 998 - 7 p.m. Members: Dick Frie, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragst n, Robbie Smith 1. Call to order. 2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting eld June 2, 1998. 4. Citizens comments. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agend . 5. Continued Public Hearing--Consideration 0 a request for a conditional use permit and a variance from the rear yard setback to allo a wireless communications tower. Applicant, U.S. West Wireless LLC. 6. Continued Public Hearing--Review fee su ey and consideration of an amendment to the Monticello Subdivision Ordinance relating 0 the dedication of land for park purposes. Applicant, City of Monticello. 7. Review of Design Advisory Team recomm ndation on signs for Cub Foods. 8. Updates. A. Community Center (JO) B. Monticello Orderly Annexation Ar a (SG) C. Southwest Area (JO) D. MCP (RD) 9. Adjournment. . . . MIND ES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICE LO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, June 2, 998 - 7 p.m. Members Present: Richard Carlson, Dick Frie, obbie Smith Members Absent: Dick Martie, Rod Dragsten Also Present: Council Liaison Clint Herbs, Mayor Bill Fair 2. 1998. 3. A. Simple subdivision request by the onticello-Big Lake Hospital District and Monticello School District. 4. Citizens comments. None forthcoming. 5. City Planner Steve Grittman reported that pon the annexation of the East Oaks Meadows plat, the property must be rezoned to perm t filing of the final plat. Upon annexation, the City's ordinance requires that the property comes into the city with an agricultural zoning designation. The Comprehensive Plan ha anticipated that the properties in this area, including East Oaks Meadows, would be oned R -1, single family residential. That was the review standard used in evaluation of t e plat prior to annexation. MOTION BY ROGER CARLSON AND ECONDED BY ROBBIE SMITH TO APPROVE THE REZONING FROM R- ,SINGLE F AMIL Y RESIDENTIAL, TO AGRICULTURAL, BASED UPON A FI DING THAT THE CITY'S LAND USE PLAN CALLS FOR LOW DENSITY R SIDENTIAL IN THIS AREA. Motion carried unanimously. Pag I ~ . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 6/2/98 6. City Planner Steve Grittman reported that om & Lisa Grossnickle have applied for a conditional use permit to allow the operati n of a beauty and tanning salon in the PZM District. This use is a permitted use in the -1 and B-2 Districts. Those commercial uses are allowed in the PZM District by conditi nal use permit. The proposed use would occupy an existing residential structure at t e northeast corner of Broadway and Washington, across Broadway from the cu ent high school/administration building. The Zoning Ordinance requires that such u es meet the performance standards for commercial uses and an additional require ent that the sale of any merchandise is retail only. With regard to performance standards, the primary impacts will be with relation to parking, building code improvements, and andscaping/screening from adjoining residential uses. While the buffer yard ord nance would require a substantial buffer yard, the PZM District states that there will be n specific standards. Instead, the development ofPZM sites are to be evaluated against th City's planning intent for the area, using zoning district standards as a guideline. The Zoning Ordinance would typically req ire approximately six parking spaces for a commercial building of this size. The app icants have proposed seven, including one handicapped accessible space. The lot mu t be paved, and curbing is required to surround the entire parking and driveway area. The applicants have shown some curb on the plan. The project should be developed in confo ance with all paving, striping, and curbing requirements. The normal buffer yard requirements would require a relatively wide buffer yard between a commercial use and adjoining low densi y residential. However, this would not seem to be practical in the original plat area of sm 11 lots and mixed uses. Instead, we would recommend a substantial fence and landsc ped screen along the boundaries of the site with adjoining residential property. This ould help to mitigate the conflicts of activity and lights associated with a commercial u e which would be incompatible with most residential neighborhoods. Finally, parking areas are required to be s t back at least five feet from all property lines. The site plan which was submitted is not survey. Verification of lot line locations should be provided to the Building Offici 1 prior to installation of the parking lot improvements. This inspection could be ade a part of the building code compliance inspections which would typically be nec ssary for new commercial development. The public hearing was opened. Pag 2 J-. . . . The curb requirement was discussed. The a plicant felt that the curb requirement is not necessary and costly. It was agreed that the curb requirement may not be necessary and the associated cost will hamper redevelopm nt. However, it was noted that to remove the curb from the plan will require an ordinanc amendment. Landscpaping between structures was disc ssed. Grittman noted that it was not the intent of the PZM District to require extensive la dscaping between like buildings where there is no business activity between yards. The andscaping is more important where vehicle and client traffic impacts adjoining properties. The public hearing was closed. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH AND SECONDED BY RICHARD CARLSON 0 APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A BEAUTY AND TANNI G SALON IN A PZM DISTRICT, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS LISTED BELO , BASED UPON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED USE WOULD BE COMP AT BLE WITH THE INTENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE P M ZONING DISTRICT. Motion carried unanimously. 1. THE PARKING LOT AND DRIV WAY ARE PAVED, STRIPED, AND CURBED IN ACCORDANCE WI H ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS. 2. SETBACKS OF NEW PARKING DRIVEWAY IMPROVEMENTS ARE MAINTAINED IN ACCORDAN E WITH THE ORDINANCE STANDARDS AND VERIFIED BY SURVEY. 3. AN INTENSIVE SCREENING A D LANDSCAPING BORDER, INCLUDING BOTH PLANTING AND FENCl G, IS PROVIDED BETWEEN THIS USE AND ADJOINING RESIDENTIA PROPERTIES. 4. THE STRUCTURE IS CERTIFIE FOR COMMERCIAL USE BY THE CITY BUILDING OFFICIAL. 5. A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING C ARACTER IS MAINTAINED TO PROVIDE THE APPROPRIATE STREETS APE AND COMPATIBILITY WITH THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHO D. 7. 6. A SURVEY OF THE SITE IS CO PLETED IDENTIFYING SETBACK LOCATIONS. City Planner Steve Grittman reported that U.S. West Communications is requesting approval of a conditional use permit and ariance which would allow them to place a 163-ft tall wireless communications towe within the required setback area of the ;L. Planning Commission Minutes - 6/2/98 . Bondhus property. The site is zoned indust . ial, and communications towers are permitted as accessory uses in this district subject to administrative permit; however, they must meet the zoning setbacks, which are 40 ft fo both front and rear yards. In this case, the rear yard would be adjacent to the Burlingt n Northern railroad line. The conditional use permit is required to co sider tower heights more than 10ft above the maximum building height limits in the istrict. This proposed tower is significantly higher than the 1-1 building heights. U.S. est indicates that the tower, a monopole design, is needed in this area to provide ade uate coverage for its services. Except for the setback issue discussed below, the proposal complies with the ordinance requirements. Variances are to be considered only where onditions unique to the site in question cause a hardship in putting the property to reason ble use. In this case, the property in question is extremely shallow. In fact, the existing ilding in the location ofthe proposed tower is just 22 ft from the road right-of-way line d approximately 30 ft from the rear property line. It would be possible to locat the tower on another portion of the site to meet setbacks; however, it would appear th t this would interfere with some of the existing activity on the site. Moreover, this would result in locating the tower closer to Broadway, an undesirable result. The prop sed location may be the best site given the alternatives in the area. . One issue which staff is still investigating i the flight path for the Hospital's helicopter. During the Hospital expansion planning, it as noted that the Broadway corridor was the preferred flight path for the helicopter. Sta f will have information relating to this issue available to the Planning Commission at it upcoming meeting. The public hearing was opened. Representatives from U.S. West indicated at they had researched other sites and found that suitable locations are limited. The are is zoned for this type of use, and it is away from residential areas. They also noted th the water tower site downtown was not suitable because it is too low and the City as not interested the concept. A representative from the Hospital District was concerned about the proximity of the tower to the helipad site. Dan Goeman wa concerned about the visual impact of the tower on the city. Poor location for the to er at a key entrance to the city. Richard Carlson was concerned about the i pact on the entrance to the city. Robbie Smith concurred. Dick Frie was concerne about the impact of the tower on helicopter flight safety. The public hearing was closed. . Pag 4 ;).... . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 6/2/98 AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS ADE BY DICK FRIE AND SECONDED BY ROBBIE SMITH TO TABLE THE M TTER PENDING CONTACTS WITH HOSPIT AL DISTRICT AND RESOLUTI N OF THE HELIP AD CONFLICT ISSUE. Motion carried unanimously. 8. City Planner Steve Grittman reported that t. Benedicts Center, a provider of housing for seniors, is proposing to develop a 120-unit enior residential facility on a portion of the property being developed by the Church ofSt. Henry. The project will also require a zoning amendment, as well as a plat to divi e the property from the Church site. Since the St. Henry's project is being reviewed d possibly amended to best accommodate the street system in the area, a precise legal de cription is not available at this time. Therefore, the zoning amendment and plat ill need to be considered at a future meeting. Land Use The site plan shows two 60-unit buildings, one for "assisted living" and the other for "independent living." Subject to final site lanning adjustments, the site consists of approximately 8.4 acres, a density of appr ximately 14.3 units per acre. This density will require an R-3 zoning district or an amend ent to the current zoning (P-S, Public, Semi- Public) to allow residential uses. The R-3 istrict would allow apartment style buildings with few restrictions. This option would b the simplest process. Since the project will require a PUD, the City should have adeq ate site development control to avoid any unintended consequences of a rezoning. Site Concept Plan The proposed project will be developed 0 a lot which will have no direct public street access. Therefore, the PUD will be requir d to accommodate the plat. Access to the project will occur over an access easemen from the new 7th Street. The plan shows underground parking for the independent l"ving building, 40 visitor spaces for the two buildings, and 16 staff spaces adjacent to t e assisted living structure. Due to the lack of surface parking planned, overflow will oc ur adjacent to the driveways serving the project. We would recommend that a "pr of of parking" design be shown on the site plan to provide the ability to add parking if de and shows it is needed. With the PUD, internal setbacks are not citical; however, perimeter setbacks must still be adhered to. This project exceeds the R-3 etback standards. Also at issue would be the buffer yard requirements. An institutiona use and a high density residential use are required to provide a buffer yard with 40 lant units per 100 feet. Under the PUD, this planting requirement could be modified, ut the planting requirement should be incorporated somewhere in the project. is will need to be shown on the landscape 5 ~ Planning Commission Minutes - 6/2/98 . plan. On the east side of the site, the projec adjoins an industrial area. The Zoning Ordinance assigns this a rating of "Signific nt" in terms of buffer yard requirements. A 30-ft wide landscaped buffer with 120 plant units per 100 feet is required. Since the property to the east is undeveloped, this pro ect will only be required to install half of the buffer yard, with the remainder being requied of the adjacent property at the time of its development. The public hearing was opened. Representatives from the St. Benedicts Ho e were present to further describe the project. It was mentioned that there were n objections to the conditions listed. It is the intent ofthe project to comply with city or inances. The public hearing was closed. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH AND SECONDED BY RICHARD CARLSON '0 TABLE ACTION ON THE REZONING SUBJECT TO DEVELOPMENT OF THE UNDERLYING PLAT. Motion carried unanimously. . After discussion, a motion was made by Ri hard Carlson and seconded by Robbie Smith to approve the concept stage PUD, subject 0 the conditions listed below, based on a finding that the project is appropriately int grated with the Church of St. Henry project. Motion carried unanimously. 1. PLATTING OF THE PROPERTY CREATING SEPARATE LOTS FOR THE ST. HENRY'S AND ST. BENEDI TS SITES, WITH APPROPRIATE ACCESS EASEMENTS. 2. A CONCEPTUAL SITE ILLUST TING AN ADDITIONAL 24 PARKING SP ACES WHICH COULD BE B IL T UNDER A "PROOF OF PARKING" AGREEMENT WITH ST. BENE ICTS. THIS TOTAL WOULD ACCOMMODATE ONE SPACE ER UNIT FOR THE ASSISTED LIVING PROJECT, SPLITTING THE PR POSED VISITOR'S PARKING BETWEEN THE TWO BUILDINGS. 3. PREPARATION OF A LANDSC PE PLAN WHICH INCLUDES BUFFER YARD PLANTINGS AS REQUI D BETWEEN INSTITUTIONAL AND HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS. 4. PREP ARA TION OF A LANDSC PE PLAN WHICH INCLUDES ONE-HALF OF THE BUFFER YARD REQUI MENTS BETWEEN THE HIGH- DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND NDUSTRIAL PROPERTY ON THE EAST. . 5. APPROPRIATE SITE GRAD IN AND UTILITY PLANS APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. Pag 6 ~ . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 6/2/98 9. City Planner Steve Grittman reported that Farr Development Company has applied for a preliminary plat and a PUD to allow a 78-1 t single family plat along County Road 118, southeast ofthe City's water tower site on onte Club hill. The project includes steeply- sloped woods on one-third ofthe subject pr perty. A single access from County Road 118 would serve the site. The existing ho e on the property would remain adjacent to the access road, and future roadway extensi ns are provided to the west and to the south. Zoning and PUD The use of PUD is permitted by the Zonin Ordinance to allow flexibility in zoning standards, subject to a requirement that the flexibility results in a superior project not likely or possible under the standard zonin regulations. PUD is being proposed in this project to allow flexibility in lot sizes in re urn for a greater amount of tree preservation on the upland portions ofthe project. Ove 750 ft of street frontage is consumed by outlots, which will remain in their natural ondition. This distance would typically provide street frontage for as many as 9 ad itionallots. Instead, the developer is requesting flexibility on a number of lots. The typical R - I standards require 80 ft of idth and 12,000 sq ft of area. Of the 78 lots, 43 fail to meet one or both of the R-l stan ards: Complies wi all stds. 35 lots Complies wi width only 6 lots Complies wi area only 19 lots* Complies wi neither 18 lots * Four lots at the top of the hill are "flag 1 ts" - narrow driveway access to a larger lot area. This table illustrates that the developer ha primarily attempted to make up for the lost street frontage by narrowing a number of e other lots. Thirty-seven of the "substandard" lots are less than 80 ft in w'dth. To accommodate this width, the developer has suggested reducing the garage-side se backs from 10ft to 5 ft. The lots proposed for this deviation are Lots 4, 5, and 6 of Bloc 2; and Lots 8, 9, 10, 11, and 13 of Block 4. One of the difficulties with varying stand ds in the same block is administration by City staff; another is later requests by neighbo s to construct additions to standards in the neighborhood. Keeping these details stra' ght can be difficult for staff specialists, let alone for other staff fielding questions fro the public. A consistent set of regulations should apply, or a method of monitoring arying setbacks should be established. The project includes a series of outlots which ould be preserved in their natural state. Outlot A (3.62 acres) is a wetland and sto water control area. Outlot B (3.30 acres) includes much of the wooded hillside. St ff recommends a natural trail through this Pa e 7 ;>..- Planning Commission Minutes - 6/2/98 . area--it would be unpaved and meander alo g the slope to the upper hill area. Outlots C and D (.43 and .39 acres, respectively) pro ide special tree preservation sites on the upper hill. The developer proposes to dedicate th se lots to the City, over and above the normal park land dedication requirements. From utlot C, an easement across the rear lot line of Lots 1 and 2 of Block 6 would provide acc ss from this development to the water tower site and city park land. The plat has been designed with 52-ft wide rights-of-way with 32-ft wide streets. Staff has suggested that the hillside street, "Wild ood Way," be platted at 60 ft but with reduced front setbacks. The purpose in thi proposal is to retain public right-of-way in the area where the street curves back and fi rth up the hill. Allowing the lesser front setback will accommodate the interest in re ucing grading in the rear yards, saving more of the trees and the native slopes. The dev loper has indicated that these lots will be graded by the developer to avoid builders 0 ergrading the site and costing additional trees. In the lower area of the project, staff has in icated that the 52-ft right-of-way would be acceptable, subject to a requirement that th intersections be platted with a radius to accommodate street signs and other necess improvements. The Public Works Director can provide direction on the size of the rad'us necessary. . The developer has also proposed four "flag lots" at the end ofthe upper cul-de-sac. These lots would have full-sized buildable reas and meet all setbacks. However, the driveways would be located in narrow nec s, increasing the number of curb cuts on the cul-de-sac. This issue has led to staffs rec mmendation that a homeowner's association be responsible for snow removal in this are, The seven driveways on the end of the cul- de-sac eliminate any area for snow storage, and there will likely need to be regular removal of plowed snow from the cul-de-s c area. This would also be the case for the modified turn-around space at the north en of Marquette Drive. The hillside prevents the construction of a full cul-de-sac withou a large retaining wall and significant grading. The City's snow removal equipment is not suited for clearing areas of this design. The public hearing was opened. Dick Frie requested that the letter submitte by Public Works be forwarded to the City Council but not addressed by the Planning Commission due to late arrival. Mike Gair, representing Farr Development Corporation, noted that two lots have been removed which eliminates problems assoc' ated with condition 1, as all lots will be able to meet setback requirements. He requested at the conditions listed include modifications to the sidewalk requirement, and he reques ed modifications to the association requirement for snow removal by informat on on the deed regarding snow removal. . It was noted that the developer is providin land and 10% of the raw land value as a cash deposit to the City for park dedication. Pag 8 :J-- Planning Commission Minutes - 6/2/98 . A local resident asked ifthe storm water iss es have been resolved. Jeff O'Neill noted that the City Engineer has indicated that th storm sewer system will be designed in accordance with City standards. WCSCD as been contacted and noted that there will be no wetland impact; however, we should be ure to use proper erosion control measures as always. The public hearing was closed. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH AND SECONDED BY RICHARD CARLSON 0 TABLE ACTION ON THE REZONING, SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL INFORMA ION FROM THE MOAA BOARD. Motion carried unanimously. A MOTION WAS MADE BY RICHARD ARLSON AND SECONDED BY ROBBIE SMITH TO APPROVE THE DEVELOP ENT STAGE PUD, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS LISTED BELOW, BASE UPON A FINDING THAT THE PROJECT WOULD MEET THE INTENT OF THE ITY'S PUD ZONING REQUIREMENTS. Motion carried unanimously. 1. STANDARDIZATION OF SIDE ARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS IN THE PLA T ESTABLISHED THROUG REMOV AL OF TWO LOTS THUS CREATING A DEVELOPMENT ITH 76 LOTS. . 2. IDENTIFICATION OF A NATU L TRAIL THROUGH THE HILLSIDE OF OUTLOT B, WITH A CONNECT ;ON TO COUNTY ROAD 118 ACROSS THE NORTHERNMOST LOT - LOT 1 OF BLOCK 2. 3. SIDEWALK ALONG WILDWOO BOULEVARD AND WILDWOOD WAY TO OUTLOT C, CONNECTING IA P A THW A Y THROUGH OUTLOT C TO THE CITY'S WATER TOWER SI E--OR SUITABLE STREET/PATHWAY AL TERN A TIVE. 4. REDESIGN OF THE PLAT SHO A 60-FT RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH THROUGHOUT THE SITE, WIT AN ALLOWANCE FOR 25-FT FRONT YARD SETBACKS. 5. ESTABLISHMENT OF A DEED STRICTION IDENTIFYING HOMEOWNER RESPONSIBILI Y FOR REMOVING PLOWED SNOW FROM IN FRONT OF PROPERT ES. . 7. PROVISION OF 60-FT RADIUS N THE CUL-DE-SAC OFF OF THE WEST SIDE OF MARQUETTE DRIVE. ;l..... 6. MODIFICATION OF THE PLAT 0 INCLUDE RADIUSES AT THE INTERSECTIONS OF RIGHT-O -WAY, PER PUBLIC WORKS RECOMMENDATION. Pag . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 6/2/98 8. RECOMMENDA nONS OF THE ITY ENGINEER ON GRADING, STORM WATER CONTROL, AND UTILI IES. MOTION BY ROBBIE SMITH AND SEC NDED BY ROGER CARLSON TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT, UBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS LISTED UNDER THE PUD APPROVAL ABOVE. Motion carried unanimously. 10. City Planner Steve Grittman reported that old Nugget has applied for consideration of a residential Planned Unit Development on I d it owns south of the Kjellberg East Mobile Home park. The site consists of approxim e1y 220 acres between the Mobile Home park and 85th Street NE, east of Trunk Highway 25 and west of County Road 117. The northeast corner ofthe site adjoins the sout west corner of the Klein Farms single family subdivision. 85th St NE is the south boun ary of the Orderly Annexation Area. The project would consist of a combinatio of approximately 339 single family homes, 176 townhomes, 20 twin homes and 40 "de ached townhomes", a total of 577 units. The developer has reserved 5.5 acres in the sou hwest corner of the project for commercial use--a separate zoning action would be nec ssary to approve any commercial land. The project would be developed in phases alon a minor collector street extending from County Road 117 on the east to the southw st corner of the project at 85th Street NE. He noted that procedurally, the City shoul consider the PUD concept, making comments and requirements for the developer's furth r planning. Following the concept plan, the developer will need to apply for a prelimin ry plat, a rezoning of the first phase, and a development stage PUD. Although the ent're project will be covered by the PUD, it is expected that the City will zone specificall by land use. Therefore, the single family areas will likely be zoned R-l, the townho e and twin home areas will be R-2, and a commercial zoning designation will be giv n to the two commercial lots if approved. The annexation ofthe first phase would oc ur with the approval ofthe final plat and final PUD. The review of the concept stage PUD is fo the purpose of identifying issues in the design which would raise concern for the City. A PUD project is assumed to be a departure from the zoning standards, but with a supe ior design and development not likely through the strict application of those standards. T erefore, the ultimate finding which the City must make is that the project design meets the intent of the PUD ordinance. This report discusses the variation from strict zoning andards which the developer proposes and how those variations may be viewed in a UD context. In summary, the City's action should be a general comment on the accep ability of PUD and, if positive, direction on each of the individual variations proposed. Page 10 ~ Planning Commission Minutes - 6/2/98 . Land Use and Density The Comprehensive Plan calls for this area 0 be developed as low density residential. The overall project density is approximatel 2.7 units per gross acre, about 3.8 units per net acre (exclusive of roads and parks). Th s density would qualify for the City's application oflow density residential. The et density of the single family area is 3.05 units per acre, corresponding to an average ot size of approximately 14,263 sq ft. As an average, this would meet the minimum R-l standard lot size of 12,000 sq ft. The developer is asking for the PUD in order to vary the individual lot sizes to include a series of about 43 scattered lots which would be oth narrower in width and smaller in area than the R-l standards, whereas others would b significantly larger. The majority ofthe "substandard" lots are rogrammed for the periphery of the project, particularly adjacent to TH 25 and the mob Ie home park boundary. Some of these lots would be deeper to allow greater buffering from the adjacent use. Scattering these lots throughout the neighborhood is designed t avoid a concentration of small lots and homes (and presumably lesser valued homes) in 0 e area. The developer proposes a standard for the smaller lots of 10,000 sq ft and 65 ft in idth. . In conjunction with the lot size adjustment , the developer is proposing to use a smaller side setback standard in that area. A reduc ion in the side yard setback to 5 ft on the garage side of the home is proposed to allo greater buildable area. Throughout the project, the developer is proposing a varyi g front setback to create additional interest along the street. Instead of the standard 30 ft, a range of20- to 40-ft setbacks has been proposed. At the preliminary plat stage, th developer proposes to illustrate how this standard would be applied to the individua lots. With regard to the townhomes and other u it types, they range in density from just under 4 units per acre to around 6.5 units per acr . This density would be considered medium density as a freestanding development. T developer's proposal is to average the density throughout the project to maintain density of less than four units per acre. The commercial areas at the southwest corner fthe project represent a departure from the residential pattern for the area. The devel per has discussed a neighborhood oriented commercial use, such as a convenience sto e/gas station or other similar land use. As a "support" land use, the proposal could be onstrued to be acceptable under the concepts discussed in the Comprehensive Plan. To much commercial at this comer, however, or commercial uses which are more regional n scope, would appear to compromise the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. The PI nning Commission should discuss the benefits of commercial use at this corner and give orne reaction to the developer and to staff. Project Design and Parks/Pathways . The project concept utilizes a "linear park" design concept throughout the subdivision. The park would connect to the trail corrid r at the northeast corner of the plat and wind through the project as shown on the attach d exhibit. The park dedication equals ten percent of the land area and is proposed t meet the full requirement of the Subdivision Page 11 ;>- L.___ Planning Commission Minutes - 6/2/98 . Ordinance. The park area varies from a 10 -ft wide corridor along the north boundary to more than 300 ft in width at Street A (the c llector street) back to around 100 ft in width at the termination near the westerly townh me area. There are three comments regarding the p k and pathway design which the Parks Commission and staff have made in revie of the project. The Parks Commission was concerned about the "remoteness" of the b lk of the park area. They encouraged a greater exposure of the park land to the str et, particularly at the crossing of Street A. They did note that the width of the park he e mitigated this concern somewhat. However, they preferred to have broad park exposure on at least two streets, in addition to the pathway connections as shown. The second comment relates to the western terminus of the park. Since this area "dead ends" at the townhome project, we would ncourage a larger focus for park use on this end. Converting the four to six lots adjace t to the end of the linear park as shown on the park exhibit would create a small "green" hich could serve as the primary active open space for the western portion of the plat. T is area would comprise around two acres which could be used both for neighborhoo park use and an important focus for the linear park system as a whole. . The third comment regards pathway conne tion to the north. Staff debated the concept of providing street access to the north along T 25 as a frontage road connection past Kjellberg East. This concept is not shown n the proposed plan, but it should be replaced with a pathway connection to the northwes as shown on the parks exhibit. The park system as proposed would includ a pathway, potentially lighted, throughout the development. The wider area near the rossing of Street A would accommodate an informal play field, and several locations i the system could accommodate smaller play structures. The townhome projects should onsider inclusion of private recreational amenities to mitigate impacts on the public facilities in the project. At a build-out population of around 1,300 persons, the pr dect will place significant demands on public recreation facilities in the area. For the so hem townhome project, a public pathway connection through to the cul-de-sac from t e main park should also be included. Streets, Utilities, Sidewalks The majority of the streets in the project w uld be local streets, with 60-ft rights-of-way and either 30- or 32-ft street widths. The s ecifics would be identified at preliminary plat stage; however, we have included a street e hi bit with planning staffs understanding of the application of the City's policy on stree widths to this project. The minor collector would require 70 ft of right-of-way and wo Id be constructed at least 36 ft in width. The City Engineer should comment on the stre widths as well. . The developer is proposing the pathway co ections in the park in lieu of sidewalks which would otherwise be required on mos streets. The exception would be a recommendation for a sidewalk along the inor collector to accommodate pedestrian or Page 2 ~ Planning Commission Minutes - 6/2/98 bicycle traffic along the busier route. This should be located on the north/west side of Street A to give easiest access to the town omes along the west boundary and connection to the pathway leading to the School comp ex. A series of small ponds are scattered throughout the development. Engineering staff will have to review the drainage plan to ensure proper storm water control. At this time, it is the City's understanding that there are no wetlands on the site. The linear par follows a drainage swale for much of the east half of the project. . Staff has also discussed the requirement fo entrance monumentation to the project to add identity to this large neighborhood. There e three main entrances to the project: One from TH 25 (to be confirmed by MnDOT), one from 85th Street NE, and one from County Road 117. Three other minor entr ce roads also serve the project. As an additional note, the City will need to work ith the Township on improvements and maintenance of 85th Street. With regard to utilities, the City Engineer hould review the utility planning and advise the developer as to infrastructure improve ents necessary for the project. Staff has discussed a phasing plan which would enc urage development from the northeast corner to the northwest corner first in order to pro ide water main looping as quickly as possible. The next priority would be to pr vide additional access to the project from the external street system. . The public hearing was opened. Leon Opatz representing the developer rev'ewed the project in additional detail. He noted that the conditions listed in Exhibit are achievable. It will be possible to make adjustments to the park size and location t accommodate concerns. The public hearing was closed. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH AND SECONDED BY RICHARD CARLSON 0 APPROVE THE CONCEPT STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR GOLD NUGGET DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS LISTE IN EXHIBIT Z. This motion is based on the finding that with the conditions, the pro' ect would meet the intent of the City's Zoning Ordinance and PUD regulations by providing for a project which is superior in quality and design than would be otherwis developed under the strict application of the City's zoning standards. 1. PROVISION OF A LANDSCAPE THE ADJACENT USES ON THE (KJELLBERG EAST). THIS NEE SHOULD BE A REASONABLE . Page 3 BUFFER BETWEEN THE PROJECT AND EST (TH 25) AND THE NORTH NOT BE AN OPAQUE SCREEN BUT EN, VISUAL BUFFER. ;L Planning Commission Minutes - 6/2/98 . 2. NO MORE THAN THE PROPOS D 43 LOTS FAIL TO MEET THE R-I MINIMUMS, AND OF THOSE, T E MINIMUM STANDARDS WOULD BE 10,000 SQ FT AND 65 FT IN WI TH. 3. REDUCTION IN SIDE YARD SE BACK STANDARDS WILL ONLY BE APPLICABLE TO THE BLOCKS WHICH CONTAIN THE SMALLER LOTS. 4. TOWNHOME TYPES WILL NOT EXCEED THE DENSITIES PROPOSED IN THE CONCEPT PLAN. 5. THE COMMERCIAL AREAS A LIMITED TO THE SIZE INDICATED ON THE CONCEPT PLAN AND ARE LIMITED TO NEIGHBORHOOD RELATED USES. 6. A PAVED PATHWAY IS INCLU ED IN THE PROJECT IN LIEU OF SIDEWALK IN MOST OTHER A AS. 7. THE P A THW A Y IS ACCOMP AN ED BY LOW LEVEL LIGHTING FOR THOSE AREAS INTERNAL TO HE PROJECT, REMOTE FROM THE STREET. 8. THE PARK AREA IS WIDENED T THE COLLECTOR STREET AS . INDICA TED ON THE PARK EX IBIT. THIS AREA SHOULD BE GRADED TO ACCOMMODATE AN INFO MAL PLAY FIELD FOR NEIGHBORHOOD USE. 9. THE PARK AREA IS EXP ANDE TO CREATE A COMMON GREEN NEAR THE WESTERN TOWNHOMES S INDICATED ON THE PARK EXHIBIT. 10. THE PARK AREA IS CONNECT D TO THE NORTHWEST VIA A PATHWAY CONNECTION AS S OWN ON THE PARK EXHIBIT, AS WELL AS TO THE SOUTHERN OWNHOME CUL-DE-SAC. 11. THE COLLECTOR STREET THR UGH THE CENTER OF THE PROJECT IS PLATTED AT A 70-FT RIGHT-O -WAY, WITH A STREET CONSTRUCTION ACCORDING 0 THE CITY ENGINEER'S RECOMMENDATIONS. 12. THE REMAINDER OF THE ST ETS ARE PLATTED AT 60-FT RIGHTS- OF-WAY, WITH 30- OR 32-FT S REET SECTIONS AS SHOWN ON THE STREETS EXHIBIT. 13. A SIDEWALK ALONG THE NO TH SIDE OF THE COLLECTOR IS . DEVELOPED AS A PART OF TH PROJECT. Page 4 ~ . . . 12. Planning Commission Minutes - 6/2/98 14. ENGINEERING AND UTILI TIE MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY ENGINEER. 11. 15. PHASING WHICH PROVIDES L OPING OF WATER AND ADDITIONAL MAJOR STREET ACCESS AS S ON AS POSSIBLE. City Planner Steve Grittman reviewed the omprehensive park and pathway plan prepared and recommended for approval b the Parks Commission. Parks Commission Chairman noted that the plan will provide he Parks Commission with direction in applying park resources as the community. rows. The public hearing was opened. There bei g no comments, the public hearing was closed. DICK FRIE COMMENDED THE PARKS COMMISSION ON THEIR EFFORTS AND MADE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND PPROV AL OF THE PLAN. MOTION SECONDED BY ROBBIE SMITH AND ASSED UNANIMOUSL Y. (F.P.) Chief Building Official Fred Patch reported that the City of Monticello has been regulating and issuing licenses for outdoor ales and display without the substance of an ordinance for many years. This proposed 0 dinance would give the City a legal basis for such regulation. Outdoor sales are divided into three classes: ... Temporary outdoor sales and dis lays are sales and displays conducted by the operators of a legitimate established business, such as sidewalk sales and the like. Such temporary sales and displays ould be allowed for up to 60 consecutive days by the issuance of two consecu ive 30-day licenses. .. Seasonal outdoor sales/displays ar sales and displays conducted by the operators of a legitimate established usiness, such as garden center sales, and the like. Such seasonal sales and displa s would be allowed for up to 120 consecutive days by the issuance of t 0 consecutive 60-day licenses. Page 1 ~ i . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 6/2/98 .. Itinerant outdoor sales and displa s are sales and displays conducted by persons other than the operators of legitimate established business, such as farm produce sales, Christmas tree sales, nd the like. Such itinerant sales and displays would be allowed for up to 60 consecutive days by the issuance of two consecutive 30-day licenses. Patch said that it is the intent of this ordin ce to regulate outdoor sales and displays in a manner that is as consistent as possible wit the existing practices of the Monticello business community. The public hearing was opened. There bei g no comments, the public hearing was closed. MOTION BY DICK FRIE AND SECOND D BY ROBBIE SMITH TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMEND ENT ESTABLISHING OUTDOOR SALES AND DISPLAY REGULATIONS. Motion carried unanimously. 13. to the City Planner Steve Grittman reported that t e Comprehensive Parks and Pathways Plan includes an implementation recommendatio for the collection of fees in lieu of dedication of park land. Rather than base t e amount of the fee on the appraised land value, the fee should be collected based up n the number of housing units to be developed in a subdivision. This would bri g the fee into compliance with recent Court decisions which require that park dedicatio s be proportionate to the amount of demand on the park system which is generated by t development in question. The value of the land is unrelated (generally) to that proporti n. In recent surveys of other area communities park fees are ranging from $500 per unit to well over $1,000 per unit. The actual amo t should be based on the projected cost of building the system and, again, the develop ent's proportion of the demand. We have calculated a projected fee of $750 per unit b sed on generalized estimates of park acquisition and construction and an estimat that approximately 75% of future park construction will be attributable to new dev lopment. This figure may be somewhat conservative. However, it should provide a reasonable starting point for the change in policy. As noted in the attached ordinance, the actu I fee would be set by resolution. Therefore, it is expected to be monitored and updated ver time. The proposed ordinance eliminates language in the current code regarding the ed for appraisals of land value as a prerequisite to establishing the appropriate ee. Dick Frie was concerned that the park dedic tion requirement was not being analyzed within the context of the entire developmen fee program. ;)- L_ . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 6/2/98 MOTION BY ROGER CARLSON TO A CEPT AMENDMENT. Motion died for lack of second. MOTION BY DICK FRIE TO TABLE T E DECISION TO AMEND THE PARK DEDICATION REQUIREMENT FOR T E PURPOSE OF OBTAINING MORE INFORMATION ON COMPARATIVE F ES AND TO PROVIDE OPPORTUNITY FOR DEVELOPER FEEDBACK. Motio carried unanimously. 14. Deputy City Administrator Jeff O'Neill re orted that at the previous meeting of the City Council, the City Council reviewed the PI ning Commission's recommendation for denial of the zoning text amendment neces ary to allow a go-cart to operate at the Monticello Roller Rink. Along with the in ormation provided by the staff and Planning Commission, the Council received a reque t from the applicant that the Planning Commission review additional information regarding site operation that was not available to the Planning Commission at the time of e original deliberation. City Council responded to the applicant's request by sen ing the item back to the Planning Commission for additional review and con ideration. O'Neill noted that one of the main reasons hy the Planning Commission recommended denial of the request was the testimony fro an adjacent property owner regarding the concern over noise produced by the operati n of the go-carts. In response to this testimony, the applicant organized a demon tration of the operation of the facility, which was conducted on May 28, 1998. In attend ce at the demonstration were Steve Grittman, Wanda Kraemer, and Dick Frie. n reviewing the demonstration, Steve Grittman reported that the sound generated y the go-carts is considerably less than the sound generated by the nearby freeway. He also noted that when the sound of the go-cart was obstructed by a car or a fence, it almost became inaudible at a distance of 200 ft. Even without the obstruction, the go-cart so d was almost inaudible. Planning Commission is asked to review thi additional information and other testimony that may be provided by the applicant and c nsider making a different finding on this matter. Chief Building Official Fred Patch indicate that a decibel level would need to be set to set the standard for the decibel level. Robbi did not think that sound is the issue here. Mark Petty indicated that a go-cart track is ing to have a negative impact on the area. What is a property owner going to think ift e land use can be changed so easily. The main concern is to caution the board. You d n't want businesses to invest in the area if one can put a conflicting use next door. Will there be a loitering ordinance to protect surrounding areas from mischief? ~ Planning Commission Minutes - 6/2/98 . Paula Adamski said yes the town is growi g and what does the city have to offer families that is fun? We have had a good relations ip with the public. Pulling people from other towns for roller skating. We are concerne about neighbors, too. AFTER DISCUSSION, MOTION BY DI K FRIE AND SECONDED BY RICHARD CARLSON TO APPROVE AN AMEND ENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO MAKE OUTDOOR GO-CART TRACKS A CONDITIONAL USE WITHIN THE 1-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, DISTRICT, SUBJ CT TO THE SAME CONDITIONS AS OUTLINED FOR THIS USE IN THE B-3 DISTRICT, BASED UPON A FINDING THAT THE USE IS CONSISTENT WIT THE PURPOSE OF THE 1-1 DISTRICT AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OBJEC IVES. Voting in favor was Frie and Carlson. Opposed Smith. Motion carried. . MOTION BY DICK FRIE AND SECON ED BY RICHARD CARLSON TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PE IT TO ALLOW AN OUTDOOR GO-CART TRACK IN THE 1-1 DISTRICT BASED PON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED USE HAS MET OR WILL MEET, WITH PPROPRIA TE CHANGES, THE CONDITIONS AS DEFINED IN THE ZO INO ORDINANCE, INCLUDING ADEQUATE SCREENING TO PROTEC, ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND ADEQUATE PARKING TO ACCOMMO ATE THE PROPOSED USE AND COMPATIBILITY WITH THE AREA A D COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OBJECTIVES. MOTION INCLUDES C NDITIONS BELOW INCLUDING ADDED CONDITION REQUIRING REMOVAL F TIRES BY NOVEMBER 1,1998. Voting in favor was Frie and Carslon. Opposed S ith. Motion carried. 1. THE CONDITIONAL USE PERM T WILL BE REVIEWED YEARLY TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NO IT IS COMPATIBLE WITH NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES A. D IN CONFORMANCE WITH CONDITIONS OF THE CONDITI NAL USE. 2. A SOLID 6-FT HIGH WOOD FE CE BE PROVIDED AROUND THE REAR YARD OF THE SUBJECT PROP RTY. 3. THE APPLICANT PROVIDE A L NDSCAPE PLAN THAT PROVIDES PLANTING MATERIALS OF TH TYPE AND QUANTITY NECESSARY TO SUPPLEMENT THE REQUIRED OOD FENCE AS AN EFFECTIVE SCREEN/BUFFER. SAID LAND CAPE PLAN SHALL BE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF T E CITY COUNCIL. 4. THE GO-CART TRACK BE SU ACED WITH CONCRETE OR BITUMINOUS MATERIAL. 5. NO EXTERIOR PUBLIC ADDRE S SYSTEM OR LOUD SPEAKERS BE UTILIZED ON THE SUBJECT SI E. . Page 8 d- . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 6/2/98 6. THE PARKING LOT BE IMPRO ED SO AS TO PROVIDE 70 PARKING STALLS, TWO OF WHICH MUS BE DISABILITY ACCESSIBLE WITH A 7-FT ACCESS LAND IN BETWE N. 7. ANY EXPANSION OF USES ON THE SUBJECT SITE SHALL REQUIRE AN AMENDMENT TO EXISTING C P SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH ZONING ORDINANCE PROVISI NS, SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE PANNING COMMISSION AND APPROV AL OF THE CITY CO CIL. 8. THE SITE PLAN BE REVISED T INDICATE THE LOCATION OF ANY AND ALL SITE LIGHTING. AD ITIONALL Y, THE APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE DETAILS REGARDIN ALL EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURES INCLUDING PHOTOMETRIC IL UMINATION FIELDS. ALL SITE LIGHTING SHALL BE SUBJEC TO REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSI NAND APPROV AL OF THE CITY COUNCIL. 16. the Monticell 9. COMMENTS OF OTHER CITY S Deputy City Administrator Jeff O'Neill no ed that a request for a simple subdivision has been submitted by the School District and ospital District. The subdivision calls for taking land away from the High School p cel and adding it to the Hospital District site. The proposal makes sense because the Ian in question is currently separated from the High School site by CSAH 75 and has bee leased by the Hospital District for years for parking purposes. The proposed subdivisi n simply formalizes this arrangement. AFTER DISCUSSION, MOTION BY SM TH AND SECONDED BY CARLSON TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED SIMPLE S BDIVISION. Motion carried unanimously. There being no further discussion, meeting was ad ourned. Jeff O'Neill Deputy City Administrator Page 9 ~ . . . 5. Planning Commission Agenda - 7/7/98 A. REF ENCE AND BACKGROU ermit ower. New Information: At the previous meetin of the Planning Commission, the Commission reviewed the staff report and t ok testimony from the public and elected to table the matter pending additional informa ion on helicopter safety. Subsequent to the meeting, the City received a letter from the ospital District noting that the presence of the monopole is not considered to be a safe y hazard; however, a flashing red light will be needed to assure safety. Much of the concern expressed at the meeti g related to the visual impact of the pole at the eastern entrance to the city. Although is is a concern, it may be difficult to deny the CUP request based on the aesthetic impact ue to the fact that the use is allowable in the 1-1 zone. See previous agenda item for backgroun and alternatives relating to this request. COpy Planning Commission Agenda - 6/02/98 . 7. U.S. West Communications is requesting ap roval of a conditional use pennit and variance which would allow them to place a 163-foot tall wireless communications tower within the required setback area of the Bond us property along Broadway. The site is zoned industrial, and communications tower are permitted as accessory uses in this district subject to an administrative permit. owever, they must meet the zoning setbacks, which are 40 feet for both front and rear yar s. In this case, the rear yard would be adjacent to the Burlington Northern railroad line. The conditional use permit is required to co sider tower heights more than 10 feet above the maximum building height limits in the di trict. This proposed tower is significantly higher than the I-I building heights. U.S. st indicates that the tower, a monopole design, is needed in this area to provide ade uate coverage for its services. Except for the setback issue discussed below, the proposal omplies with the ordinance requirements. . Variances are to be considered only where c nditions unique to the site in question cause a hardship in putting the property to reason ble use. In this case, the property in question is extremely shallow. In fact, the existing b ilding in the location of the proposed tower is just 22 feet from the road right-of-way line, nd approximately 30 feet from the rear property line. It would possible to locate th tower on another portion of the site to meet setbacks; however, it would appear that this would interfere with some of the existing activity on the site. Moreover, this would r suIt in locating the tower closer to Broadway, an undesirable result. The proposed locatio may be the best site given the alternatives in the area. One issue which staff is still investigating is During the Hospital expansion planning, it preferred flight path for the helicopter. St available to the Planning Commission at its he flight path for the Hospital's helicopter. as noted that the Broadway corridor was the will have information relating to this issue , pcoming meeting. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Decision 1: Conditional use permit for a tower in excess of the district building height limits. 1. Motion to recommend approval of t e conditional use permit, subject to the conditions listed in the Exhibit Z, ba ed upon a finding that the proposed use complies with the requirements for s ch facilities in the Zoning Ordinance. . 2. Motion to deny the conditional use ermit based on a finding that the tower is incompatible with the surrounding d uses. 4 ~.,I . 3. Motion to table action of the conditi nal use permit subject to additional information. Decision 2: Variance from rear yard se back. Planning Commission Agenda - 6/02/98 1. Motion to recommend approval of t e rear yard setback variance for a wireless communication tower based upon a ding that the property's unique shape justifies the variance. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the ariance based upon a finding that the variance is not necessary to put the property t reasonable use. 3. Motion to table action on the varian e subject to additional information. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes that relocating the tower to an ther portion of the property to meet the setbacks would have a negative impact by ving the tower closer to the public right-of- way. We would recommend that the tower s placed as close to the rear lot line as possible since the rear line adjoins the railro d and will have less impact in that location. Staff's recommendation for approval of bot the conditional use permit and the variance is contingent on the conditions listed in Exhibi Z. . D. SUPPORTING DATA: Exhibit A - Site Plan/Survey Exhibit Z - Conditions of Approval . 5 5,Z, j'. . , .. . M ;... . '.. t'" \ 0 ~, ~ "lC , . -; ,'\ " .. .......- ." \ . -'111' ."",'" -, p. .,; II -, .. / ,., , .~&, '"" ~ . .. ,'. ~.. "'... .. I '.. =', - . :.." .,. :J , ',' , , : :Q t: .' .. . - _..~ ..0- '~ -; ~: 'lA' - I ~ "" .,; I a- I - - - I (~.s O-s ".;-.. '.. ,_,0 C\. ..~ 5-, )~ '~<::. . Proposed Tower Location --. i,.:' :;~... ~ . ." / ,.y /" ...:. ..",.." -t'! . . ...."" .... '^ "d > I I i , , '\--/ / / , J J , " ' 'j "I . " r ~ , 'T' It. ! ~; oJ a '. ~'\::ll J!~ ' ;So:;l ~ -u ; ~~ . ~ t~: -'2' 'l:;;::1.....', ~ ~ . o ~ ;, .~ \ .... t _"'It.. .. to . .. ,: I '. ~.;.~." . "'.. . ~ -.... I '" .' . . ,.... ~'.. . . .. ---... ~.~.. .~'.. ~-~:. ~ ., '. :~...... ."-:, . :-','i! ::" .. I I ( I I I i .... - N Ol:z:fti ~;~ Site Plan Exhibit A - . . . CONDITIONS 0 APPROV AL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT U.S. West Co munications 1. The tower does not encroach into the front yard and is placed as far from the front lot line as possible. 2. The equipment area is screened from the p blic right-of-way. 3. The tower does not interfere with the flight path for the Hospital's helicopter services. 4. The tower meets all other ordinance requir ments. J5~lf E hibit Z - Conditions of Approval . 6. . . Planning Commission Agenda - 7/7/98 A. The City Council has asked City staff for comprehensive study of fees and charges as related to new development. The study is 0 ensure that the City of Monticello fees and charges are: · Competitive to those of neighborin cities in the same market area, and · Commensurate to the actual costs i curred by the City in providing municipal servIces. In cooperation with the City of Hanover, e have surveyed 12 neighboring communities in the same economic development market as Monticello and Hanover. The fees and charges for each city surveyed have been i stalled in the first attached chart (See Exhibit A). We have made a city-to-city comparison 0 estimated fees and charges likely to be incurred in two development examples. T e first is single family residential (See Exhibit B) and the second is for a 100,000 square Ii ot industrial office/manufacturing! warehouse building (See Exhibit C). Both examples a SUllie that the development would occur on bare land within the city limits. Costs that ay be related to annexation, extension of utilities and roadways, and private "soft co ts" such as engineering and private planning fees are not considered by this study. Subt tals are provided to indicate how fees and charges are distributed by category of city ervice provided. After making comparison between fees and charges, it is important to also make comparison between utility rates and charges. Indirectly charged development fees such a utility rate charges and expendable development escrows and cash bonds are dificult to compare from city to city but must be considered when comparing developme t related fees. Note that in particular, that the cities of Buf alo, Big Lake, and Maple Grove charge substantially more for water and sewer than Monticello (Buffalo 60% more, Big Lake 40% more, Maple Grove 25% more). Utility revenue drawn from the entire community have the effect of subsidizing the cost of new develo ment, as development of utilities and capacity of those utilities result from deman created by the new development that is apparently not paying its own way. 2 . Planning Commission Agenda - 7/7/98 As an economic development policy, the ity could determine that higher utility rates to all the utility users may be justifiable, as i will stimulate development by lowering the up-front costs for new development. Pol cy determinations related to how municipal expenses related to development are paid hould be considered by City Council with advice from the EDA, HRA, and the PI ing Commission. NAC has prepared a more specific study f park dedication fees and has provided the attached report (See exhibit D). The Planning Commission is requested to review the information attached. NAC and City staff will review the results of the su ey and examples attached. After receiving comment from the Planning Commission, staff will recommend changes to City fees and charges. Those staff recommendations wi 1 be presented to the Planning Commission for its recommendation to the City Council. If changes are made to fees or charges, it i highly suggested that those changes be effective in 4 to 6 months time in order to provide sufficient notice time to the developers and builders. Note that SAC charges have already been cheduled by City Council for a $500 increase effective January 1 for the next two years. That will make the SAC charge $2500/unit effective January 1, 1999, and $3000 effe tive January 1,2000. . B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Comments to be received by City staff an NAC. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: None at this time. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Survey of Fees for 12 Com umtIes. Residential Fee Estimate E ample. Industrial Fee Estimate Ex pIe. NAC Report -- Subdivision Ordinance Amendment (park dedication fees) . 3 .,. .N ,. 1997 FEE STUD WORKSHEET City Becker Big L.k. Buffalo Elk River Hanover Permit Type & Structure 612-261-4302 612-263-2107 61H84~04 612-441-7420 CONSTRUCnON BLDG PLAN/REVIEW 1979 UBC 1994 UBC 1988 UBC 1994 UBC 1979 UBC (F.e Sch. V..r) BLDG DEIIIO $25.50 1994 UBC $25 1994 UBC $25.50 BLDG 1II0VING 1979 UBC 1994 UBC $25 Move strUf;:lyre in~$150: Pte-movelnspecUol1 $75; move structure out-.$35. permit b~sed on valutt or home after move 9fld Improvements. IIIECHANICAL $25 per unff '"Not used on $25.50 (Included with $251unff 1 % of the valuatloll of Ihe $25 I flxlur. new SFD, charged only to building pennff) VIIOrk or as calculated under comm, And remodeling. Iha Uniform Mechanical Code, whk:hever is greater. $18 min. PLUIIIBING $5 per fbdUtEt "'Not used on $25.50 (Includ.d with $30 + $3 flxlure 6 psr fix1ure. $18 min. $5 I fixture n8W SFO, charged only to building perm") Coltlm. And remodeling. FIRE SUPRESSION PERMIT 10% below slate cost Slate $25 1994 UBC Based on v$lue of system. FEE FIRE ALARIII PERIIIIT FEE NA State None. 1994 UBC Based on v~lue of systet'r'l. GAS PIPING PERIIIIT FEE $25.50 No air test chargl;t, rod iron Nons, Min $18 + .50 ~urchargej $6 Either per unit or value of Included in bulldlnQ. per opening. work, On 10"8 septic $100 Un/.ITY CONNECnON SEWER CONNECT PERIIIIT $100 (5181 $20 100 $18 No Satlltaty sewer at this FEE Um.. WA TER CONNECT PERIIIIT Part of buikting perl11~ $20 100 $300 See attachment FEE SEWER & WATER COIIIB. Part of building permit NA one. $25 $0 PERIIIIT FEE UTILITY ACCESS SAC $600 2400 ($1~0 lor 01.1..) 3,700 $1.300 $0 WAC $600 1,500 650 $1.050 $0 TRUNK WATER None. NA one. $3001101. $Q TRUNK SANITARV SEWER None. 650 one, $3.800IAC W,sl Elk Rlv.r; $0 $5.000IAC Easl Elk Rlv.r TRUNK STORM SEWER None. 650 one. Res. (urban) 101 $137.69 $0 R... (ru.a~ 10. $68.83 CommllndlMl,llti $826.10IAC. LAND USE PLA TISUBDIVISION $100 plu. $10 p.r 101; Final $150 + 2700 OSCrow ree or more parcels $125 $500+$51101 ov.r 50 1IIDeveloper$ Agreement Pial $80.00 SIIIIPLE DIVISION $60 $150 + 700 escrow omblnatlon or two parc;elIJ $150 . SEE BELOW $ 5 CUP $60 $200 ... 500 or 700 escrow es - $50 filing fa.. $100 Commllnd. $300; R.s $100 $200 or $350 - ... nners fee: Comm - $100 ahiilchment fl ng f.., $100 plann... fe.. PUD $100 $850 R.. $200 + f...; Comm. CUP + Plat fee . SEE BELOW $ 50 + fees REZONING $100 $150 + 700 escrow RI s $200 + fess; Comm. $250 $200 or $350 - ... $ 50 He.. attachment VARIANCE $60 $200 + 500 or 700 escrow $ 5 minD/': ~gl family flllng $150 $200 or $350 - s.. f ; $100 comm filing fee; attachment $ 00 planners ftt$, HOlliE OCCUPATION $50 None. N ne. $15 1$200 or $350 - ... attachment EXHIBIT A 1 91Fee-stud y. I. -- _n -.-. .- --'-.... ---... (, " J:'- . . . . 1997 FEE STUey WORKSHEET City Becker Big l.~. Buffalo Elk River Hanover Permit Type & Structure 612-261-4302 612-263-2101 612.e64~404 61H41-1420 SIGNS $10 None. $15 Up to 100sq It ($30); 101- $0 300 sq It ($90); 300<sq It ($150) ZONINOITEXT AMII:NONENT $50 $150 + 700 esctoW $50 filing f..; $100 toward $300 $200 or $350 - s.. (VAFUA.NCEI plannar's faa attachment OTIiER Geru:m:d planning $50 Contour ~ topography mapping :!lIvailable for PARK DEDICA TION 10% of pial. None. $aOOlun~ Restdentj~1 $650/1ot (unit); land - 1AC per 75 peoplo or Comm $2,OOO/AC; Ind-NA 25 dwellings. Cash - $650 SF/$1300 two fam~ylolh., $450 p.r un~ plus 100 p.r bedroom above 1 st bedroom. OTHER DEVELOPMENT RELA TED FEES Developers pay Gctual * Developers egreement . planner's (e8 $80/hr. + developer responsible for all engineer's fees $65/hr, fees tel~tlng to development engineer/attorney/Qdtrd"/~'r eet signs/etc:, Send rpt to LoIureen SEND ElK RIVER A COPY Bodin, Asst. Admin, 212 OF SURVEY \/IIIiEN Central Avenue, Buffalo COMPlETED. 66313 UTILITY RA TES SANITARY SewER 1.20 p.' 1000 gallon. of 3.40 pe' 1000 gal < $3 $4.09 p.' 1,000 g.l. 2.88 p.t 1000 gal; $6.66 mln None. waler surcharge per qtr. Min. $27 per qua,ter charge; $11.48 mln charge; $15.30 flat rat~. WA TER 1.00 psr 1000 gallons 1.50 pe' 1000 gol< $3 1.95 pt;tr 1,OOO/firsl $1.11 pe, 1000 gal. $17.60/10,000 gallon'& (see surcharge per qtr. 100,OOOgol 1.750v.r al1achment) 100,000 gal. RECYCliNG 1 ,30 per month No charge. $2 per month, re'&k1enllal Recycling charge of $3/mo. No charge (optional) Is included In the refuse bill. REFUSE HomeoWller contract on Hol"llEtowners contract on $7.99 (35gal can); $13.99 90 9al- $17; 32 gal- 13.14; Not c~y own. own. (65gal can); $21.99 (95gal 32 gal bl-wI< . 9.89; can) addlUol1~190 gal container .I! $10.69. ElECTRICAl None. None. New construction $500 Non Demand (Ie'&$ lhan 50 Not c~y access. charge; Res. $5 KW) $9.50 < .086 for first charge... .0525; Comm. 2500 Kv'vh/month; ove' 2500 $8.50 oha'g' < .0636 KVVhImonth .066. Demand customers, grsl;Iler than 50 KW, eustomer charge $28. OTIiER Storm Sewer $2 .SO/month ~ ,.. EXHIBIT A 2 97F"l!Js-s1u y.xls - u - . . {,~1:-- . 1997 FEE STU Y WORKSHEET city MlIIple Crove Monticello Ots.go Rogers St. Cloud Permit Type & Structure 612-49H1000 612.296-3060 612-426.2263 320.266.1239 CONSTRUCTION BLOG PLANIREVIEW 1994 UBC 1988 UBC 1988 UBC 1982 UBC 1994 UBC (Foo Seh. Yo..) aLOG OEMO $30 1988 UBC No fee 1982 UBC $20.50 BLOG MOVING $30 $100 + expenses CUP $600 + permit 1982 UBC $12.75 ror 1s1400 sq ft.; $8.83 oaeh add~ional 400 sq ft. MECHANICAL ReskfEtntlal New $80 . R... $30 bas. + $2 fi.tu" : $25 $25 pt;tr unj( Res - Minimum $25.00 + R.mod.1 $40; Comm. Comm. $50 bS$Et + $2 surchliltge; Comm - NewIRsnll)del $1,000 or fixture Minimum $25.00 minimum + I... $20; $1.000-$10.000 appliance fee. (2% or eontraet); +$10.000 ($200+ 1 .5% of valuE! over $10.000) PLUMBING Res New $75 fQr hi bath, + R.s . $20 + $2/fi.turo; $25 $5 p.r fixture $8 por btur.. min. $24.00 + $25 .aeh addn rull or 3/4 Comm . $40 + $2lfixturo .50 surcharge. bath; $12.50 ror oaeh 1/2 bath finished or foughwin bath. Romod.1 $25.00; ~ter softens.. $25; gas plpiog $25; Iown sprlnklor $25; Comm New & Remodel: value $1.000 Qr 1e1if;J $20; value $1000~ $10000 (2% or eonlroet); $10.000+ $200 + 1.5% or value over $10000. FIRE SUPRESSION PERMIT 1994 USC F.. Seh.dulo 1988 USC Incl. In building plltrmll. bSlJed on value Qr work NA FEE FIRE ALARM PERMIT FEE 1994 UBC F.. Sehodulo None. Incl. In buikUng permit. NA 1.2% of system c:osl; $28.50 minimum fee GAS PIPING PERMIT FEE $25.50 R.s - $20 + $2/fi.lur.; Inel. In building permit NA $25 oaeh piping + $10 p.r CQmm - $40 + $2/fixturQ openlhg. UTILITY CONNECnON SEWER CONNECT PERMIT R.s. $465 . 5851on~; $20 porm~ NA NA $15.50 FEE Comrn. 4xres. Rale/acres WATER CONNECT PERMIT $1,220 per res unll 4;11; $20 pormft NA NA $15.50 FEE resldenlial rlille/acres SEWER & WA TER COMB. R... $1.790 -1.910 p.' on~ $30 porm~ NA $60 R.sl $100 Commllnd. NA PERMIT FEE Inspection fGes UTILITY ACCESS SAC $1.000 $2.000 Ros. Sgl family; $2.768 $600 + $1000 por un~ o - debating $2,000 per unit, all others RSAC; M.,ro SAC WAC NA $500 $2.858 $700 Residential o . dobatlng $800 Cornm.lnd TRUNK WATER AnAfiGed $625 por AC $2.105 $1000 per acre. water $750 TRUNK SANITARY SEWER Assessed $1.250 per AC NA $1,400 per acre $0 TRUNK STORM SEWER Assessed $5.220/AC bosln.ss; Based OM Impervious Private Inliotallation or $0 $4.9331AC Industrial; surface area of the assessed as municipal $4.502/AC rosld.ntlal Bvelopment Improvement project. LAND USE PLA TISUllOIVISION $250 + 5/lot +- any escrow $300 + loo/AC up to 10; dmln $150 + 700 ascrow; 1 $300 min (ba'.d on $100 pr.limlnary Piat $125; Final $251AC oflor 10/AC + o.p. .r 40 splft $200 + $0 per lot) + $ 1 00 6nal plat. Plat - up 10 4.99 acres $125; scrow; 1 per 40 splil 5.00109.99 aer.. $190; transror) $200 + $500 10.001019.99 BCres $245; scrow. 20.00 or more Qcl'es $310. SIMPLE DIVISION $100 $$0 A $100 Up to 4.9 AC $125 CUP $200 +- any e"crow $125 + .xp. ingl. ramily $200 + $500 $100 Homestead $55; Non- serow; oth.r $200 + $500 hom.sload $310 scrow. PUD $~50 + $20/.ero + $200 + NONEIASK FP. A NA Homestead $55: Non~ $5/lot homestead $370 REZONING $200 + $201acre . mu, of $250 + ..p. 150 .... $700 escrow $500 $370 $500 VARIANCE $150 $50 + o.p.; $125 + ..p. 200 + $500 escrow $200 1~125 HOME OCCUPA nON $0 $10. administrative p8rl'l1~: A $75 0 $125+..p. Sp.elal p.rm~ (similar to CUP) EXHIBIT A 3 97FB$-~tu dPI. . . . 16 ""~ . 1997 FEE STU[ Y WORKSHEET City Maple Grove Monticello otsego Rogels St. Cloud Permit Type & Structure 812-494~000 812-296-3080 812-428-2263 320-288-7239 SIGNS $1-500 valus f! $20 feEl'; $10 min.; $10 for 101 $1,0< NA Sign Ereclol"s, annual $30; $501-1000 valul!I.R $20 for value: $5 for addl $1,000 wall sign not exceeding 100 first $500 + $S for Etl;lch value. square r~l;tt $25; rQr elilch additional $100 or (r!;lction addltlol'la150 sq n. In gxce~~ Ihoroof; $1001-2000 $45 for of 100 sq ft $5; ground signs 8..1 $1000 + $10 for oach for the f1rs11 0 sq n of au,a addittonal $500 Of fracUon $25; for Nch add~ional5 sq thorool; $2,001 + $65 for Ihe ft to area $5; temporary 8,,\ $2,000 plus $5 for oach signs ~ annual permit $50. :sIdditional $1000 or frac:Uon thereof. ZONINOfTEXT AMENDMENT $125 $250 $150 + $700 o.crow $100 $0 (VARIANCE) OTHER Comp Plan Amendment $200 Trail dedication fee ($125 $500 Compo Plan Excavation Permit $26 p8r residential dwelling UIlIt) Amendment $200 Site Plan PARI< DEDICA nON Res-$845 pet uni1; CQmm" 10% of the land area or Res. Pl;lr dV\lelling unit $950 10% land de:dlcallon -or- $1,80/sq ft single family dev. $3,800 par ac'e: Ind.$2.775 equivalent amount In eal!;lh Of 10% of gross land area Ro.. $560 par 101, Ind. $1.50/sq ft multi-familv dBV. per acre being subdivided; ComlTi. $1400 per acre. Cornm 10% of gross areB being $1800 per acre. subdivided or 10% of fair market value of undeveloDftd land. . OTHER DEVELOPMENT REL Excavation Plilrmlt $25. Excavation Permrts $29 SEND COpy OF FINAL RPT. UnLlTY RA TES SANITARY SEWER $16.50 ba.o charga + 1.25 0.500 cu ft $10; over 501 c Not established. estimaled 1.80 per 1,000 gaVqlr $1.10 per 100 cubic par 1000 gal. ft $1.73 pot 100 cu ft. at $21.851monlh. WATER $.90/1000 gal. Used 0-500 cu ft $7.50: over 500 Not established, estlml;lled 1.01 per 1,000 gallqlr 0-200 $4.45 por 100 cu ft; cu ft $0.45 per 100 cu ft. at $4.39/monlh. from 200-17000 $2.21; 17,000-50,000 $1 .94: over 50,000 1.85 RECYCLING $6/qtr (Includ$l!I ulSie of yard $30 processing fss per $0 7.05 pef quarter Matldalory I no separate waste stte) quarter. $30 .::redlt for 9 or charge from refuse. more bins fecvcled P~r qtr. REFUSE Each r8slderit conlr:iJcts 0 private NA $31 per dwelling unit for 3 individually with B tefusE\' can 5etvk:Iit, or $4.50 paf hliilulef. dwalllng unit fQf the btilg system service; e~ch b~g shall cost $2. ELECTRICAL Non8, None. prillate NA None. St, Cloud does license elec:trlcill contractors. Fee available upon request. DTHER EXHIBIT A 4 97Fe(t-slu pis -. --- -". ..-..-. -.-.- __m.. . . ~~.~ . 1997 FEE STUC Y City SI. Mlch.el Zlmmeunan Permit Type & Structure 612-497-2041 888-4866 CONSTRUCTION BLDG PLAN/REVIEW 1979 UBC 1994 UBe (Foo Sch. VOO') BLOG DEMO NA 1994 UBe BLOG MOVING Varkts according to 1994 UBe In?J.pections required. MECHANICAL $251unlt + surch(llrge New conliitruction . $40 + &urchlilrge; Remodel- $25 l;Iurcharge. PLUMBING $5 per "xture + surcharge. New conslruction - :J.75 + $26.50 minimum $urcharge: Remodel- $20 l;J.urcharge and $5 par opening. FIRE SUPRESSION PERMIT NA 1994 uae FEE FIRE ALARM PERMIT FEE NA 1994 UBe GAS PIPING PERMIT FEE NA 1994 UBe UTILITY CONNECT/ON SEWER CONNECT PERMIT NA Inl'Jpeetion '88 $35 FEE WA TER CONNECT PERMIT Jolnl Powers Inspection fee $25; $160 FEE meters SewER & WATER COMB. NA NA PERMIT FEE UT/LITY ACCESS SAC Nlilw constructJon$3.425: $2,000 existing $1,038 WAC Joint Powers $2,000 TRUNK WATER NW $845; 241 $1055 NA TRUNK SANITARV SEWER NA NA TRUNK STORM SEWER NA NA LAND USE PLAT/SUBDIVISION Prollmlnary $450 . $10 per $250. $10/1ot Prollmlnery lot. $400 Final SIMPLE DIVISION $450 $250 CUP $350 $100 Ra. $350 Comm. PUD $750 RezONING $350 $250 VARIANCE $100 $150 HOME OCCUPA TION $350 $100 5 97Fee-.tud -.. --.- n._ EXHIBIT A WORKSHEET . . xis !I ~.;.~ . , 1997 FEE STUCY City SI. Michael Zimmerman Permit Type & StrUcture 612-497-2041 886-4666 SIGNS Varies; $25.50 $l5Jyr. Zm'<lltllGfTEXT AMENOMENT $350 NA (VARlANCE) OTHI;R Site plan rev~w . $800 NA PARK DI;DICATIDN o to 1.00 untts/Qcre a%.; Part of plaiting process; Re 1.01103.49 ul1its/acre 10%; -7-112% orland ar.o; 5% 3.50 10 5.99 unftslacres comm; 12% multlfflmily. 12%; 5.00 unHsJacrl;! or more 14%: comtnlll1d. Davalopment 10%. OTllIiR DIiVEtDPMI;NT Rl;t UTltlTY RA TfiS SANITARY SI;WI;R $1.45 par 1 ,000 gollooo 2.38 par 1000 gal. WATI;R Joint Powers 1 .35 par 1000 gal. RECYCLING NA NA REFUSI; NA NA I;LECTRICAI. St5llte does NA OTHI;R 8 97FI;tt;tostud . --.... -.-. -. -.... EXHIBIT A WORKSHEET . ,~./ .'0 . xis "l:, Residential: City Becker Big ake Buffalo Elk River pennlt Type & Structure 612-261-4302 612-243-2107 612-682-1181 612~41-7420; 441-2020 utilities D. Mack . CONSTRUCTION BLDG PLAN/REVIEW 1,443.75 1,786.95 1,169.25 1,786.95 (Fee Sch. Vear) BLDG DEMO 25.50 54.00 0.00 54.00 BLDG MOVING 36.00 54.00 25.00 MECHANICAL 0.00 25.50 25.00 30.00 PLUMBING 000 25.50 60.00 60.00 FIRE SUPRESSION PERMIT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 FEE FIRE ALARM PERMiT FEE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 GAS PiPING PERMIT FEE 0.00 0.00 000 0.00 subtotal 1,443.76 1,837.96 1,264.26 1,876.95 UTILITY CONNECTION SEWER CONNECT PERMiT 100.00 20.00 100.00 FEE WATER CONNECT PERMIT 0.00 20.00 100.00 FEE SEWER & WATER COMB. 0.00 0.00 0.00 PERMIT FEE subtotal 100.00 40.00 200.00 0.00 UTILITY ACCESS SAC (23 unlts/MWCC) 600.00 2.540.00 3.700.00 1.300.00 .. WAC 600.00 1,500.00 650.00 300.00 TRUNK WATER 0.00 0.00 000 300.00 TRUNK SANITARY SEWER 0.00 650.00 0.00 up to $2,OOO.OC TRUNK STORM SEWER 0.00 650.00 0.00 137.69 subtotal 1,200.00 6,340.00 4,350.00 2,037.69 LAND USE PLAT/SUBDIVISION SIMPLE DIVISION 170.00 150.00 + 700 escra,^ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 560.00 0.00 BOO. DO/per uni 650.00 730.00 #VALUEI #VALUEI 660.00 CUP PUD REZONING VARIANCE HOME OCCUPATiON SIGNS ZONINGtTEXT AMENOMENT (VARIANCE) OTHER PARK DEDICATION subtotal . GRANO TOTAL #VALUEI 3,473.76 #VALUEI 4,564.64 97residenti I.xls - EXHIBIT B ~ .,1 . Residl ntial: City Becker Big lake Buffalo Elk River Permit Type & Structure 612.261-4302 612.26 - 2107 612-682-1181 612-441.7420; 441-2020 utllltl.. D. Mack UTILITY RA TES SANITARY SEWER 8.98/1000 CF 2 .43/1000 CF 30.59/1000 CF 21.54/1000 CF WATER 7.4B/1000 CF 1 .22/1000 CF 14.59/1000 CF 8.30/1000 CF RECYCLING 1.30 per monlt 0.00 $2 per month, residential Recycling charge of $3/mc optional is inct. In refuse bil REFUSE Homeowners contrac Homeov n ers contrac 7.99 (35 gal can); $13.9 90 gal" $17; 32 gal = (65 gal can); $21.99 (95 gal $13.14; 32 gal bi-wi " $9.89 Can) addl 90 gal container = $10.89 ELECTRICAL 0.00 0.00 New constr" $500 access Non demand (less than 5C Res. $5 chg + .0525; Comn KW) $9.50 + .086 for firs $8.50 chg + .063! 2500 KWh/month; over 250C KWh/month .066. Deman( customers, greater than 5 KWm customer charge $2 OTHER Storm sewer $2.50/month residential - 2 97residentl a .xls EXHIBIT B -- .. . . {, .,8" . Resid ntial: City Hanover Maple G rove Monticello O18ego Permit Type & Structure 497-3777 612-49 -6000 612-295-3060 CONSTRUCTION BLDG PLANIREVIEW 1,443.75 1,786.95 1,169.25 1,169.25 (Fee Sch. Year) BLDG DEMO 0.00 0.00 45.00 0.00 BLDG MOVING 0.00 0.00 0.00 45.00 MECHANICAL 25.00 80.00 34.00 25.00 PLUMBING 50.00 150.00 40.00 25.00 FIRE SUPRESSION PERMIT 0.00 0.00 000 0.00 FEE FIRE ALARM PERMIT FEE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 GAS PIPING PERMIT FEE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 subtotal 1,518.76 2,016.95 1,243.25 1,219.25 UTILITY CONNECTION SEWER CONNECT PERMIT 0.00 465.00 20.00 0.00 FEE WATER CONNECT PERMIT 0.00 1,220.00 20.00 0.00 FEE SEWER & WATER COMB. 0.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 PERMIT FEE subtotal 0.00 1,685.00 40.00 0.00 UTILITY ACCESS - SAC (23 unl18IMWCC) 0.00 1,000.00 2,000.00 2,766.00 WAC 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,858.00 TRUNK WATER 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,105.00 TRUNK SANITARY SEWER 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TRUNK STORM SEWER 0.00 0.00 1,450.00 0.00 subtotal 0.00 1,000.00 3,450.00 7,729.00 LAND USE PLAT/SUBDIVISION 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SIMPLE DIVISION 0.00 0.00 0.00 000 CUP 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PUD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 REZONING 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 VARIANCE 0.00 0.00 0.00 000 HOME OCCUPATION 350.00 000 0.00 0.00 SIGNS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 lONINGITEXT AMENOMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 000 (VARIANCE) OTHER 0.00 000 0.00 125.00 PARK DEDICATION 650.00 845.00 560.00 950.00 subtotal 650.00 845.00 560.00 950.00 GRAND TOTAL 2,168.75 5,546.95 5,293.25 9,898.25 3 97residen Ii I.xls EXHIBIT B .. - . .;.,/ :,'. . ~ ....~ Resid ntial: City Hanover Maple 3rove Monticello Olngo Permit Type & Structure 497.3777 612-49 -6000 612-295-3060 . UTILITY RA TES SANITARY SEWER 0,00 2 ,85/1000 CF 18,65/1000 CF 21,85/monU WATER 13,16/1000CF ,73/1000 CF 9.75/1000 CF 4.39/month ,.J' ,. RECYCLING 0,00 $6/qtr (in I. Use of yare 0.00 0,00 waste site REFUSE Notcitl Homeo' ners contrac 0,00 0,00 ELECTRICAL Noteit None, 000 0.00 : OTHER . . 4 97residenti I.xls EXHIBIT B (, ,.,10 . Resid nlial: City Rogers St.Co ud St. Michael Zimmerman Permit Type & Structure 612-428-2253 320-25 -7239 612-497-2041 856-4666 CONSTRUCTION BLDG PLAN/REVIEW 1,443,75 1,786.95 1.443,75 1,786.95 (Fee Sch. Year) BLDG DEMO 36.00 0.00 36,00 54.00 BLDG MOVING 36,00 0.00 36.00 54.00 MECHANICAL 25,00 25,00 25,00 40.00 PLUMBING 50,00 80,00 50.00 75,00 FIRE SUPRESSION PERMIT 0.00 0,00 0.00 0,00 FEE FIRE ALARM PERMIT FEE 000 0,00 0.00 0,00 GAS PiPING PERMIT FEE 0,00 55.00 0,00 000 subtotal 1,518.75 1,891.95 1,516.75 1,901.95 UT/LlTY CONNECTION SEWER CONNECT PERMIT 0,00 15,50 0.00 35,00 FEE WATER CONNECT PERMIT 0,00 15,50 0.00 175,00 FEE SEWER & WATER COMB. 60,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 PERMIT FEE subtotal 0.00 31.00 0.00 210.00 UT/LlTY ACCESS SAC (23 unlls/MWCC) 1,600,00 0.00 3,425,00 2.000.00 WAC 700.00 0,00 0.00 2.000.00 TRUNK WATER 330.00 750.00 845.00 0.00 TRUNK SANITARY SEWER 466.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 TRUNK STORM SEWER 0.00 0,00 0.00 subtotal 3,096.00 750.00 4,270.00 4,000.00 LAND USE PLAT/SUBDIVISION 400,00 250.00 460,00 660.00 SIMPLE DIVISION 100.00 450,00 250.00 CUP 100,00 350.00 100.00 PUD 0.00 0,00 0.00 0,00 REZONING 0.00 0.00 0,00 0,00 VARiANCE 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 HOME OCCUPATION 75.00 0.00 350,00 100.00 SIGNS 0,00 0,00 0,00 15.00 ZONINGfTEXT AMENDMEIH 0,00 0,00 0.00 0.00 (VARIANCE) OTHER 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 . PARK DEDICATION 560.00 1.096.00 446,00 420.00 subtotal 960.00 1,348.00 908.00 1,095.00 GRAND TOTAL 6,574.75 4,020.95 6,696.75 7,206.95 5 97resident i I.xls EXHIBIT B - --... -. --. -.-. .. u__ -- . . f4 ..." Resid ~ntial: City Rogers St. ( loud St. Michael Zimmerman Permit Type & Structure 612-428-2263 320-25 -7239 612-497-2041 868-4666 . - UTILITY RA TES SANITARY SEWER 13.46/1000 CF 11,00/1000CF 10.85/1000 CF 17,60/1000 CF WATER 7.56/1000 CF 2,10/1000 CF 0.00 10,10/1000 CF RECYCLING 7,05 per quarter 0,00 0,00 0,00 REFUSE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 ELECTRICAL 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 OTHER 0,00 0,00 0.00 . . 6 97residenti '-xis EXHIBIT B , ~~,~ . Comma cial: 100,000 square foot 0 fflce/warehouse City Becker Big Lake Buffalo Elk River Permit Type & Structure 812.281-4302 812-283. 107 812-884-5404 812-441-7420; 441-2020 utilities D. Mack CONSTRUCT/ON BLOG PLAN/REVIEW 13,254.45 H,980.0C 12,901.72 17,980.00 (Fee Sch. Year) BLDG DEMO 25.50 54.00 25.00 0.00 BLDG MOVING 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MECHANICAL 375.00 25.50 37500 450.00 PLUMBING 100.00 25.50 90.00 120.00 FIRE SUPRESSION PERMIT 84.00 84.00 25.00 225.00 FEE FIRE ALARM PERMIT FEE 0.00 0.00 0.00 135.00 GAS PIPING PERMIT FEE 25.50 0.00 0.00 90.00 Subtotal 13,838.95 18,115.00 13,391.72 19,000.00 UTILITY CONNECTION SEWER CONNECT PERMIT 100.00 20.00 100.00 18.00 FEE WATER CONNECT PERMIT 0.00 20.00 100.00 1,050.00 FEE SEWER & WATER COMB. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PERMIT FEE . Subtotal 100,00 40.00 200,00 1,068,00 UTILITY ACCESS SAC (23 unlts/MWCC) 13,500.00 55,200.0C 85,100.00 29,900.00 WAC 600.00 1,500.0C 650.00 1,050.00 TRUNK WATER 0.00 0.00 0.00 300.00 TRUNK SANITARY SEWER 0.00 650.00 0.00 $3800/AC West Elk Rive $6,000/AC East Elk Rive TRUNK STORM SEWER 000 650.00 0.00 826.10 subtotal 14,100.00 68,000.00 85,750.00 32,076.10 LAND USE PLAT/SUBDIVISION 160.00 650.00 125.00 500.00 SIMPLE DIVISION 60.00 700.00 75.00 150.00 CUP 60.00 700.00 200.00 300.00 PUD 100.00 850.00 500.00 0.00 REZONING 100.00 350.00 350.00 250.00 VARIANCE 60.00 700.00 200.00 0.00 HOME OCCUPATION 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SIGNS 10.00 0.00 15.00 90.00 ZONINGfTEXT AMENDMENT 50.00 500.00 150.00 0.00 (VARIANCE) OTHER 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PARK DEDICATION 65,000.00 0.00 800.00 subtotal 65,270.00 1,000.00 1,290.00 840.00 GRAND TOTAL 93,308.96 7,155.00 100,631.72 52,984.10 1 97commercI I.xls EXHIBIT C .. -. - '.... - . . {Q ~Il . Comme . cial: 100,000 square foot office/warehouse City Becker Big L.. e Buffalo Elk River Permit Type & Structure 612-261-4302 612-263. 107 612-684-5404 612-441-7420; 441-2020 utilities D. Msck UTILITY RA TES SANITARY SEWER 8,98/1000 CF 2843/1000 CF 30.59/1000 CF 21,54/1000 CF WATER 7.48/1000 CF 11 22/1000 CF 14,59/1000 CF 8,30/1000 CF RECYCLING 1 ,30 per month 0,00 $2 per month, residential Recycling charge of $3/mc optional is Incl. In refuse bil REFUSE Homeowners contrac Homeow ers contrac $7,99 (35 gal can); $13.9 90 gal" $17; 32 gal' (65 gal can); $21.99 (95 ga $13.14; 32 gal bl-wk' can) $9.89; addl 90 gal contalne " $10.89 ELECTRICAL 0.00 000 New Constr. $500 access Non demand (less than 50 Res. $5 chg + .0525; ComlY KW) $9.50+.086 for firs $8.50 chg + .063E 2500 KWh/month; over 2500 KWh/month .066. Demand customers, greater than 5C KW, customer charge $2 OTHER Storm sewer $2.50/month residential . 2 97commer lal.xls EXHIBIT C -. ---.-."'.- . . ~~l~ . . . Comme rcial: 100,000 square foot office/warehouse City Hanover Maple -, rove Monticello Otsego Permit Type & Structure 497.3777 612-494 6000 612-295-3060 CONSTRUCTION BLDG PLANIREVIEW 13,254.45 17,980.00 11,729.25 12,901.99 (Fee Sch. Year) BLDG DEMO 25.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 BLDG MOVING 75.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MECHANICAL 375.00 725.00 60.00 25.00 PLUMBING 100.00 275.00 80.00 25.00 FIRE SUPRESSION PERMIT 225.00 225.00 225.00 0.00 FEE FIRE ALARM PERMIT FEE 135.00 135.00 000 0.00 GAS PIPING PERMIT FEE 90.00 25.50 70.00 0.00 Subtotal 14,179.46 19,365.50 12,184.25 12,951.99 UTILITY CONNECTION SEWER CONNECT PERMIT 0.00 2,100.0C 20.00 000 FEE WATER CONNECT PERMIT See attach men 4,880.00 20.00 0.00 FEE SEWER & WATER COMB. 0.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 PERMIT FEE Subtotal 0.00 6,980.00 40.00 0.00 UTILITY ACCESS SAC (23 unlta/MWCC) 0.00 23,000.00 46,000.00 63,848.00 WAC 0.00 0.00 3,335.00 2,858.00 TRUNK WATER 0.00 Assessed 6,250.0C 2,105.00 TRUNK SANITARY SEWER 0.00 Assessed 12,500.00 0.00 TRUNK STORM SEWER 0.00 ? 49,333.00 7 subtotal 0.00 23,000.00 117,418.00 68,811,00 LAND USE PLAT/SUBDIVISION 500.00 750.00 1,800.00 850.00 SIMPLE DIVISION 350.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 CUP 350.00 500.00 125.00 350.00 PUD 350.00 350.00 Q,QO 0.00 REZONING 350.00 500.00 350.00 250.00 VARIANCE 350.00 150.00 0.00 0.00 HOME OCCUPATION 350.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SIGNS 0.00 45.00 25.00 0.00 lONINGfTEXT AMENDMENT 350.00 125.00 000 0.00 (VARIANCE) . OTHER 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PARK DEDICATION 4,500.0C 27,775.00 65,000.00 65,000.00 subtotal 5,350.00 29,070.00 67,176.00 66,100.00 GRAND TOTAL 19,629,46 78,416.60 198,817.25 147,862.99/ 3 97commera al.xls EXHIBIT C ... --- --- . f6 ....,5" . Comme I cial: 100,000 square foot office/warehouse City Hanover Maple ( rove Monticello Olsego Permit Type & Structure 497 -3777 612-494 6000 612.295-3060 UTILITY RA TES SANITARY SEWER 0.00 2 .65/1000 CF 16.65/1000 CF 21.65/mont~ WATER 13.16/1000 CF .73/1000 CF 9.75/1000 CF 4.39/month RECYCLING 0.00 $6/qtr (ine . Use of yar 0.00 0.00 waste site REFUSE Noteit Homeo", ners contrae 0.00 0.00 ELECTRICAL Notcih None. 0.00 0.00 OTHER 4 97commer ial.xls EXHIBIT C . --. --... ____m . . ftJ ,lip . Comme I cial: 100,000 square foot office/warehouse City Rogers St. Clo ud St. Michael Zimmerman Permit Type & Structure 612-428-2263 320-266- 239 612-497-2041 866-4666 CONSTRUCTION BLDG PLAN/REVIEW 13,254.45 17,980.00 13,254.45 17,980.00 (Fee Sch. Year) BLDG DEMO 54.00 20.50 0.00 54.00 BLDG MOVING 54.00 3000 54.00 54.00 MECHANICAL 375.00 115.00 375.00 40.00 PLUMBING 100.00 160.00 100.00 175.00 FIRE SUPRESSION PERMIT 225.00 000 0.00 306.00 FEE FIRE ALARM PERMIT FEE 0.00 150.00 0.00 187.25 . GAS PIPING PERMIT FEE 0.00 175.00 0.00 75.00 Subtotal 13,964.46 18,580.00 13,729.45 18,763.26 UT/LlTY CONNECT/ON SEWER CONNECT PERMIT 0.00 15.50 0.00 35.00 FEE WATER CONNECT PERMIT 0.00 15.50 0.00 25.00 FEE SEWER & WATER COMB. 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PERMIT FEE Subtotal 0,00 31.00 0.00 60.00 UTILITY ACCESS SAC (23 unlts/MWCC) 23,600.00 0.00 78,775.00 46,000.00 WAC 800.00 0.00 0.00 2,000.00 TRUNK WATER 10,000.00 750.00 1,055.00 0.00 TRUNK SANITARY SEWER 14,00000 0.00 0.00 0.00 TRUNK STORM SEWER 000 0.00 0.00 0.00 subtotal 48,400.00 760.00 79,830.00 48,000.00 LAND USE PLAT/SUBDIVISION 400.00 245.00 460.00 660.00 SIMPLE DIVISION 100.00 250.00 450.00 250.00 CUP 100.00 310.00 350.00 350.00 PUO 0.00 370.00 750.00 350.00 REZONING 500.00 370.00 350.00 250.00 VARIANCE 200.00 125.00 100.00 150.00 HOME OCCUPATION 75.00 0.00 350.00 100.00 SIGNS 55.00 2550 15.00 ZONINGITEXT AMENOMENT 100.00 0.00 350.00 0.00 (VARIANCE) OTHER 20000 ? 800.00 0.00 PARK DEDICATION 14,000.00 65,000.00 32,500.00 subtotal 14,900,00 670.00 66,836,60 33,426.00 IGRAND TOTAL 77 ,264.46 20,031.00 159,394.95 100,248.251 5 97comme clal.xls EXHIBIT C ---- ,,--...--. . . (, .,/1 . . . CommE r cial: 100,000 square foot office/warehouse City Rogers 51. CI ud 51. Michael Zimmerman Permit Type & Structure 612-428-2253 320-266 7 239 612-497-2041 866-4666 UTILITY RA TES SANITARY SEWER 13.46/1000 CF 11 00/1000 CF 10.65/1000 CF 17.80/1000 CF WATER 7.56/1000 CF 22- 10/1000 CF 0.00 10.10/1000 CF RECYCLING 7.05 per quarter 0.00 0.00 0.00 REFUSE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ELECTRICAL 000 0.00 0.00 0.00 OTHER 0.00 0.00 0.00 . 6 97commerci I.xls EXHIBIT C ... .. ... --..--. .. ,".:.. (Q ~/B . . 1. . JUL-02-1998 14:27 NAC N NORTHWEST COMMUNITY FLANNINQ - OE:SIQN - MARKET RESEARCH SSOCIATED CONSULTANTS MEMORANDUM 612 595 9837 P.02/08 Since the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court 0 the Dolan vs. TIgard ease, many cities have chosen to have a detailed evaluation done of their 'sting park and trail dedication requirements. Specifically, it is critical to determine whether the mounts of cash and/or land required from the developer are proportional to the development' impact on the recreational system. At the direction of Mike Sobota, we have prepared an xplanation and summary of the methodology which has been used by our office in evaluating ark and trail dedication requirements. Quantify the Improvement Costs of the ity.s Ultimate Park and Trail System In order- to determine what a city's proportional pa trail dedication fee should be per residential ., unit, the total value of existing improvements and otal estimated cost of planned improvements must be calculated. At least part of this data ca be taken from the city's Park and Trail Plan which shows the locations and approximate sizes of existing and planned parks and trails. The service areas of parks must also be available to de ermine whether a portion of existing parks will service areas not yet developed. An itemization of recreational elements desired in each new park, trail widths and materials, as well as plan ed improvements to existing parks must be determined to the extent possible. Example line terns might read as follows: Acquisition of land, 6 acres at $20,000/a Two baseballllelds, Includes rough and ne grading, crushed red rocl<. backstop, lighting, 3 row fiberglass bleao ers and 15 foot benehes Upgrade existing pCl{jjng lot and expand, includes grading and surfacing. parking for 30 Landscaping, waste receptaeles, and Big age 100,320 Iinearfeet@ $13/1f, 8 feet wide bituminous paved, includes grading and gravel base City Park Overland Trails $ 120,000 $ 200,000 $ 31,000 $ 18,000 $1,304.160 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 554 Ie PHONE 6 12.595-96.36 FAX (512.595-9837 &//9 JUL-02-1998 14:27 NAC 612 595 9837 P.03/08 For much of the existing facility data, we would rely on input from the parks department regarding past budget data the sources of funds used to imp I ment existing recreational elements, whether it be park dedication monies, band referendum, rants, donations, tax levies, etc. . 2. Evaluate Existing Park and Trail Syste Against Current Community Park and Trail Demands The existing recreational system needs to be looki at in relation to .ideal standards for park and trail development, such as acres of park per pop latlon, linear feet of trails per population, etc. This will determine whether the City's current recr ational system is either over built, under built, or right on target in relation to current demograp ic conditions. If underdeveloped, the existing population and/or sources of money other than pa dedication should make up the difference so as to maintain the balance between new resid nts impact on the system and the amount of dedication money required of the developer. If over developed, the park dedication may be adjusted to reflect an equitable distribution of co t to new development. 3. Identify the Proportion of Park and Trail ystem Improvements Funded by Park and Trail Dedication In past studies results for various cities have sho that about forty to sixty percent (40~O%) of the total cost of improvements is implemented thr ugh park and trail dedication monies and the remaining portions are realized through other me ns such as grants, donationslvolunteer work, tax levy's. bond referendums, etc. We must id ntify the level of funding that park and trail dedication fees offer Lakevilleand define assum tions on their future use. . 4. Allocating Park: and Trail System Cost Future Residential Growth The Comprehensive Plan provides forecasts for po ulation and household growth. The City must identify future residential growth by housing type multiple family vs. single family) if it wishes to maintain its sliding scale to assign a land dedi' ion percentage which rises as the number of units per acre inaeases. The impacts of multiple f mily units/developments on the park and trail system will have to be evaluated to document the ect that household sizes, number of children, ages, and other demographic characteristics may have upon a city's park and trail system must also be proportional to the required dedication a ount. The future improvement costs can be divided by t ture household counts to provide an average park improvement cost per unit. This can be mpared with existing per unit park values to Illustrate an equitable distribution of costs. 5. Commercial and Industrial Park Dedica ion The City also has a commercial and industrial d dlcation requirement, however, the Dolan vs. Tigard case showed that in order to collect park edication monies from such uses, the burden is on the City to identify what proportion of i pacts on the park system come from these businesses and their employees. This could be d ne many different ways with varying levels of detail, so long as the City demonstrates that a reasonable effort has been made to make a . 2 &--J-O ! JUL-02-1998 14:27 NAC 612 595 9837 P.04/08 determination On what percentage of the total im rovements can come from commercial and industrial developments. If the City opts to procee with this type of analysis, once obtained the data can be used with the acreage of undevelope commercial and industrial parcels and cost of land per acre to estimate the contribution to the overall system. . The residential park land dedication requirements 1/ be adjusted to reflect contributions received from commercial and industrial developments. 6. Recommendation for Park Dedication S ndards Park and trail dedication requirements must be prop rtional to a development impact on the City's recreational system. Upon completing and analysis of the aforementioned items, the City will be in the position to identify and define the approp iate park and trail dedication standards for various land uses (i.e., single family residential, m Itiple family, commercial and industrial). pc: Roger Knutson Bob Erickson . . 3 o /d--I JUL-02-1998 14: 19 NAC ! bid ~'j:::' :Jd5i 1--' .1I.Y 14 . PARK AND TRAIL FEE INVENTORY )F WESTERN METRO AREA AND WRIGHT COUNT' COMMUNITIES Northwest Associated ( onsultants, Inc. Julv 29, 1 97 . CITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL TRAIL PARK DEDICATION{a) PARK DI;DICATION OR leer unit) SIDEWALK Land Cash Cash DEDICATION Land Albertville 5% $500 5% 5% of fair None market value Buffalo 10% $800 None Sidewalks .. along collector streets Cokato None None None Delano '0% $300 7% $1,000/acre None Elk River As required by $600 As required by $2,OOO/acre Trails as Plan, equal to Plan, equal to required by cash contribution cash contribution Plan, deducted based on fair based on fair from park f.,. market land value market land value chfield None None None Maple Grove 10% $1,060 7.5% Commercial: Trails as $3,600/acre required by Industrial: Plan. deducted $2,n5/acre from park fees Monlicollo 1 0 "10 Equallo 10"10 of 10% 1 0% of fair On major raw land cost market value streets (See (2) below) (See (2)below) Olsego 1 0"10 $750 10% '0% of fair $125 marKet value Plymouth 1 00;.. $1,400 10% $4,200/acre See (3) below Rockford , 0"10 $500 None Commercial: When required $250/acre within right-or- way' (sidewalk) Rogers 10% $560 (plan on 10% Coml:Tlerelal: None. but raising to $2,OOO/acre currently $650 to 675) Industrial; pursuing $1,400iacre St. Michael 8% $300 None, but City is considering None <<mead None None None (a) Combination 01 land/cash a1J10 possible wh4re such c:kidic.tionlllf. required W"'~ ...- ----.-. ---.-...-...--." ---- ~ JUL-02-1998 14:20 l'<14C tJ.Lt::,; ..)..}..) .:;u-, I I ~ ~".f~ ,L-' Park & Trail Fee Inventory Page Two .JUIY 29,1997 (1) Maple Grove has over 70 miles of pav d trails and many are located along the side or rear lot lines of residential arcels. They 'require a 30 to 100 foot corridor within which an 8-10 foot tr iI is constructed according to the Plan. The dedicated land is part of t,he req ired 10% land area. In addition to this requirement, 5 foot sidewalks are r quired on both sides of the street in all new subdivisions. They have not had any problems with resident complaints. (2) Monticello requires cash dedication in an amount equal to 10% of the raw land. Monticello requires trails to e installed by developers as shown on their Plan. The Policy requires a rail on one or both sides of the street (depending upon the situation) along II roads which exceed 500-700 vehicle trips per day. Monticello has an established commercial and industrial dedication amount (10%), but it has ever been used. (3) Plymouth has over 75 miles of paved rails, with many located in rear and side yard areas of residential lots. A minimum corridor size of 30 feet Is required to be dedicated land, so as not to!e sen the required setback from property lines (an easement wou.ld allow the trail to be located Closer to the home). The required trail width is 8 feet. hey have had very few complaints. but . recommend getting the trails install d before homes are built. However, in commercial and indus; rial areas the opposite method of trail establishment Is used: easements ar required to allow the owner to maxImize use of his land. The cash dedicati n amount is $4,200/acre in commercial and Industrial areas. . fI-,~3 . . . 7. Planning Commission Agenda - 7/7/98 A. The CCD District provisions of the Zoning Code require that the Planning Commission review the signs proposed for the Cub Foo s store as approved by the Design Advisory Team. The sign plan for the new Cub Foods store as reviewed and approved by the Design Advisory Team on May 13, finding that th signs were in conformance with the intents of the CCD District and the Comprehensive P an. The sign area is approximately twice that allowable under the City's sign ordinance; owever, the Design Advisory Team felt that the signs were appropriate to the scale of t building. The proposal is as described in Exhibit A a tached hereto and considers only wall signs. Cub Foods has expressed interest in also er cting a monument type sign at the Highway 25 entrance on the east side ofth property. The monument sign proposal was also considered and encouraged by the DA ; however, any signs other than those approved by the DA T to date must be revie ed by the DA T at a future meeting. The Planning Commission acts as the Boar of Appeals for the DA T and is asked to simply review and confirm the recommend tions of the DA T as related to signs proposed for Cub Foods. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Review and accept the sign plan for the Cub Foods store as approved by the Monticello Design Advisory Team. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval ofthe sign plan for the Cub Food store as approved by the DAT. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Copy of Sign Plan for Cub oods. Copy of CCD District sign r gulations. Minutes of the DAT meetin of May 13, 1998. 4 ""'L..""'C"'T'"='C SIGNS m~~~J lil~l' WJ L-. ~ ern' Dc " D. ' ,. r-; I " L 1..\ . May 15, 1998 City of Monticello 250 E. Broadway PO Box 1147 Monticello, MN 55362-9245 ATTENTION: Fred Patch REGARDING: Cub Foods 21 87th Street West Monticello, MN Dear Mr. Patch; Regarding the signage for Cub Foods located at 21 87th Street West, enclosed please find copies of our drawings and the forms for application for the p oposed signage. Upon your approval, please notify me as to the amount of the permit fees which we will need to submit. Also, please inform me as to any additional paperw rk which we will need to submit should the enclosed not be sufficient. . We are proposing the following signage: I. Wall A. Install (1) 17'6"x23'7-1/2" internally illumin ted Cub wall sign B. Install (3) 8'9-3/8"x11 '9-314" internally iIIu inated Cub wall signs C. Install (1) 4'x53'2-1/2" internally illuminated Low Price Leader raceway-mounted wall sign D. Install (1) 3'x23'9-3/4" internally illuminated Pharmacy raceway-mounted wall sign Should you have any questions or comments regard ng the signage for this project, please feel free to contact me at (847) 465-6471 . As per our conversation earlier today, I informed Cu 's account manager of the monument possibility. When Cub has made a decision, she wU let me know so that I can forward the information on to you. Thank you for all your help during this project. s;~~ Jacquelyn M. Jensen Permit Coordinator Specialist enclosures . JMJ/tbm 7, I 1322 BARCLAY BOULEVARD BUFFA 0 GROVE, IL 60089 . 847-520-1255 ~ ~ o <:f .... -n .. 0 ~ 0 . @- " I ~ (f ~ " . ~ 5i ~ if ~ &1t3!\J!~ ;+ m ::r ~ ~ g ~ g m i- m i.l ~ ~' ~ (\ n. a i m i\ - ..... q ]J ~ < L,a~o. 4- < ~ g ~ g' 5'{)(\~~ ci" ""'Vt'U\1J' ;;l I=> ~t-.l""""-n ~o~8 0 0. -, "' ~ . ~ . . I ,[.... .~ ("\\JIJIlf\ :e::: Sg~D ~ 0>",,,5. 1JIl.ll.lQ ~I ~ ~'Ji >--- Cll.l >- :-- 4- -'.,(,\' 8.li~ ~ - . 9.0.~" I~ 6 a ~u: 6~ =..E ;;l =- i> .. t-F ("\3!-I>,~ - r--j~ ~3ljlo \11"',,8. ~ ..J(\ l.l q ....aLO' . . OIf::!!\J!~ l~t .. II ....,2 r III o ~ - ~ '= " lio....lf\O I.l. 0. .... :, -1-1 iT~@0~ If rn O-l)~ll -;;l.... . - J.. "" ~' ~ill _ Q It"' C" _(\~~O- ;;l 0 l.l l.l ~ ~~~ & = Q.J:....r ~ .... ~t-.lli 11 0 ~ ~ 0- m ....0 ~ ~ 0 ! rt ] !I ~ ---- - - 0 : lUi - il I 'tIl; . ."" ,m -l 8.1t]&~ lj L ,Cll: 0.0.... J. -J: If\ ~ ~5' ~ 0 Bill . .~ l-:i~ _("\ai.lQ. O~]\J!lf\ ~~~~& ., 8:0(\lf\~ 2) " ]~ ""~~0D. ~ IJI.... ~ -n 5'~ :.... Q "'" () '"" 0 . ~("\a~D. Sl 8- "ra;ll'l.l & "' ....\11';;1 I ~t-.l""(\-n I tllo....o .... 0 Ir 0 D. r , "' ~ Q ~ ~ r ~ &" -, ~ '" ~ '" HAUl! DATI! REVISION - ~~ , 11'IIlI~i llllll!l IlId I D~4~i5 REVISION - .. ~ .. : :-- f .1,"11 pill' ,i I 1= .. .. ~ ll.~iil. ~ ! II IA~ ~ , .. .. ~ "11111 ~tot'1 .. .. --- : :1.:!!1 ~ """,...,.m - .. ~ ~ --- n .. ~ .. n . .---. 7.,,;A . ~i H!unu~ ~Uii IU!!! 8 h Uh~!!HAIHI~nldl ~ aV 0 ~Ia I 0 5 t 0 o en ""liP ~:l '" (/) ~~~0 ~l r f~ ~~ ~ ~ ]I II"'" III 6 ~~ ~~ :. ",;'l ~\J ~ 5~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~i i ~ rt~ ffi 'll~ ~ ~ ~" 'l: ~i ~ ~ ~; Ii ~ fi ~ U ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ . . r . . .~ ""Jq . ~ U ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ l ~i ~ ,19 iji" ~i <! 1" l! 9l,\, till! ~ .;. s!" rn." ~ lS -oR '" -0 lI\ '" r; 8 ~~ VI ~i h ~ ~ ~ In ~ ~ f:~ iiI-o M ~ 'n_ ~ ~"ijl ~p~ l'i I ili ~ r Z~t4n~~:(;"'" -l Pl ~ ~~l~~~pg . ---t ~;;"lJ ..!.~t:;:tJ1o V' -~ <n f~2::""'EZ~~ r'l ""lD,,~<3:"'" ::I. ^' ~~ ~-i~::u~dz C g;; ~~-<'J~b~ rr1 c rr1"(1"'1'1:to 0" ~. 8 tj~zz t~~ J> ~ ~d~~ ><R P ~ ::t~ NV1 r- f'T1 c: "I r- ~r- ,. I @@,~D@IM $1 C 1 10531 e!/llJ)'W 5/17/9J IfNR.-"',M,WMJ -LM =WE tiDIED if}4WJiP~ IJ'U~ ~ U) \l' ~ 1) ~ o o Cl. Ul g rc '5 a -u .... is j ~ ~ x q Ul C (' rc '5 a ~ is j ............ VlN r, ~1 ;Q [] ~~ Vlo VI.., VlO ~~ ....,. 0>> Z'" M '" Z M [] Z - l> n -1 c l> r l> :;:0 fTl l> W ro \.0 Q:) (/) \U .." -l ~ A) --l~ VlJ> >-< Z f'1 Al Cl Pl -l J> P ... ' ," ~; "'0 VI-< ~ 1+ :;: ~--------------- 1'-\' I I I 9'-8' I----" o -.. I o '" 6 - 6' '" n C td '" I--t Z -l f'l /0 Z J> I I -< I--t I I C 3: I--t Z J> -l f'l t::l I f'l -l -l fTl /0 (/) I--t Q Z 3'- \ ' ~,..n ..na D) PLYWOOD aOLCKING OPTION "ODED, ELECTRI~ UPO"T 0 C) lE ITER CROSS SECTION AtlO SPECS uPDATED 0) ItlFO UPDATE ^ .S. ROTATED IN fOODS OW OW KAY on lK _.........------..............----~.---~~ 17'- 6' 10'- 0' :, I~w ,!6~ .:.: 10;11 2-< -<< ''''8 ,C1" I~~ IZ;:! ..,'2 I~~ lIb , I u___-.J 4'- \' 5'- 5' 2'- 7' '=' (.1 "l1 t:::H.1 ~c:::o :lO..... }Io"'TJ;;Q :J> t ~~~ ~S li~~ tI~ ~ z - tI ~~~ ?l; ~~~ ~~ ....:J:I"l....""-I W:E>;;Q w- i~" ~~ t'1",,~ M ~~ ~ '1-< DO 0-< ~1' 1'1, "' ,-< -. N", .,'" .., .", I"l .... ~ (.J)ttCo....~c:n J;I- n..... " -0 I I I I . I I I "'"U ~-t ....17>.....""O'I:O'm VJ S~ b~~~(r.~~~ ~?E ",-" ;J p'r .. '... ...............0...,_................ Z ^p .. hi. . f\.Il.l1 tu UI c..1 .. (oJ ~'t>~8'!:ibbb ~ _w 08 8ggg~~ " ~ ~ VI -" ~ (j'I (\ (\ c ~ OJ m \.II 11 (j; () II () q ~ f\J W t' -..j lD -\ )> Z \J )> iU \J (j If\ (\ r n1 -\ -\ n1 iU (j'\ n1 -\ ... .... f'I o 8 i ~ .2/1J/96 ~ 2/2/96- .. 57i7/9S- g !L!_!L~j- ~ 1111I I fl' i!iii 'i' ,! lad ..~ll ~I:I l:U II ! p1'l11l8~1 · I . i III ~ ~ II 111'.3 Iii p~ ~iH!iIUU~ ~UU iU!!! g !lllhiUnllllll nidi ~ o l/l ~ ~ n '" l/l ~ ~. ~. ~ ~~ 0 i ~j r ~~a U ~ ~ ~ ~ 1) C I o o D- Ol g ~ ~ U ~} ;! i~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ f"~ ~ Ii ; i G $ ~ ;,\~ a ~ R $ f. "' ,j, ~ ::I ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ ... il ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~F ~ ~ ~ m ~.~!2~" ~i ~ l' ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ m ~~ -n ~ ~Ul ill ~~ ~~ ~ m~ ~ ~ i\i ~ F~ iili a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~2 ~ f-.) x M Ol 5' (\ " 5' "'''' '" "'>l 1:1 n< B ~~n~~~l~ ~CI1 ri ~r.l~~~r(L1 ~~ ~ tj"1J ..-;o~:JJ. ~8 fTle<~~~~ ~p ~ri ~~~~t:[j~ ~~ f'Tl~ zt:r<f'Tl::t. c L....I ~ t1~ Q~i~~~: %g -I S<:...,Vi'" xi'; z 2:: z !~:r::;n ~(::; 8 ,-- ,. M'" :::: Z :: ~~ ~ z ,-- :"'j ['1 wj f'l ;U I @&@O@iAYJ fV C 1 1 852 B I ...- apil'f1rE 2/17/9J ~~-!-W: 1 i:'.r:&JlJE NOTED rrNNIJJif"~ IRll.IE8l ~ U1 ~ n ---1 I c 0 f? ~ l> ~ ;Q n f'l c l> bj o -u 6 j \D -...J (r, ....... f\) Z (II --l P rr1 IIJ ;J ~ r r -< '" ""1N 0' ;Qx ~ru c , Z -Itd Zb Gln I---t b1C r f'lZ r xC) c Zo ::?: t:l.u Z ~;:::! l> '~~ --l r ;Q rr1 f'l t:l ~ t:l r ('Tl --l -I rr1 IIJ (/) ....... Cl Z Z70 ........jf'l VJ 0 Tn I I ~ I d 'Ill! ~ ; I f.' ,- r! i II I , ~i r · /' ~ I m " "I I ft~1 '1"'1 j: ... Ii 0 ~ I " m ! i ill L ,'~ II ~ ~i :1 z .. II ! I p 1m ~ M ,- f'l n -~ IIJ ....... n J> ,- 3'-3" LETTER 'F" 1'~4 <1/16" 51_@" LETTER "c" -& ~ 3'-<1' 1)\ ~ 12" I I i I I ! ! L__L--_ D'-<1 BID" ;Uo f'lUl -10 C ;:or Zf'l ;; 4=1 ...... ;u Z f'l ;:0 t::J f'l ........j J> ...... I (IIt::loo-.'J""c:nJ;> I 1 III I I 1 ~ ~;~~NruNrv(..l) W~WW~~~~ -.'J -I 00 0---1 ---1J;> J;>r '" f'lr f'l 1-1 ---1 ....f'l bl;Q ",;0 -...Jf'l . ---1 C ;Q Z t:l'" ;Q---1 J;>J;> <z ....t:l Z~ Q;Q t:l n 13: ....0 ....c ooz Ul---1 N...., bz <Q Gl' f'l r r'l n -I ;:0 1> .l>.(J\.l>.""-.J-...J-...J-...JZ oooolnlnlnln ~ g g g g g g g,g D N ;u 0 :s:; f'l J;> ;u 3: VI " ;:or f'lJ;> ---1;;0 J;>C) zr'l f'l ;:0 ~.,... IMina PlYWOOO BOlCKINC OPTION mOED, ELECTRICAl UPDATED ow 12/1J~ r'1 ,- 1"1 n --l IIJ I--< n l> ,- I;y ..n ~ ""1W D' ;o~ 01 3: " .L Dr Q c-< :':i< --' ""'D ~ ;;j t:l~ 7 <;;0 Q l> ['l , ro r'b n --< ""'0 ;Q---1 OJ;> Sir -IJ;> (113: ;Q"lJ f'lVl 0' -I.... W " . ....-.J "\D "" ,. f-.) <:: ~ U\ (\ (\ C ~ (" m IJl 11 :t;: a II a ,. II q ~ ,- Jl ~ (j\ -1 )> z \J }> /U \J Vl \f\ (\ r m -I -1 m 7J (j\ rn -1 z o ---1 f'l (/) . UHtill::UUUUiiHU ~ ~ 1111 I j\llllh III l!jlll ~ 3 3'm ':!:f il':!:f~~ i;;o I i~~ ~cn c ! r ~ iii ~ :l ~ ~ UU;IIH!IHUUiiUil 2 ~ 11I1!IU!1I B~Hlnil - ~ ill lit; 3'-1 ~f" ~f~~ !~~ ni~ nt ~ ~ ~~ iil1~ ~.! : ,~~~ ~ m ;u ~ ~ '" "" J.l . ~~ <J~ ~;I; ;I;~ ~'l ~ ~~ ili ~ ;a. ~ iii:;! i!.. i" ~ ~i ~ 2 'j!~ ~~ %~ ~~ ~; <!;I; ~ ~ ~8 ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ l<< i ~ ~ ! t e~ 1iI~ !~ ~ l s: ~~ ~~ .. ~ ~ ' :l ~5 -~ ~ ~ F~ ~ ~~ ,n ~ Q :J q ~ '" x q OJ D " .,.. "I' ~~ il~ n ~~ p ~ ~r ~ ~ Ii !; i; ~i ~I~ ; II ~ i ~i ~s ~~ ~i l j ~ ~ ~g ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ F~ ~ ~~ h ~ 5 :J ~D@lR!lIVC13657 I - . II!>PJ'illZ 12/16/96 ~ --L.rwtJ! 1 UJJl1JE NOTEO ~t!!JJt1):M:tJ~ J~~J -I" a~rrn y; a fii ~... ~ l!;ti1 L J;3 11 2~\Il gl!ll!;1.>I "'~ i1l gs ~~ ~a ~" i (j\ ~~(\ J;3 r i~ m 2i~)> " ~ ~-IIJ 'ta~Cl o m " i ~ ill ~...j fJ () i~ ". J~~J .... IJ L l (;I r;); ii\ B J;3 a if, i:" ~ '" 0 1.>1 ~ l!; I!- Z ~ L J>. 11 !;! ,~ g~ i1l III Jj i~(\ 2 li1 ~ m fJ~ Jj r lil'" RI!- m ....10 1(;1)- '" ai~Cl 6~ ~~...m g~ ill ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ -l lJI).",- J:i/I ." ~1J'''''M'Jta ._-_._,.~._~-~----~"'--- oW ~;) :r . ~~ ~ -" "'9. (j\ r (\ <- ~ L ~ --0 II' iU 7 (\ q m r m )> \) rn iU \f\ -\ )> z \J )> fJ \J -I'. iU )> (\ m " ~~ <:l' ~~ . ~~ -( (\ (\j!': II fa ~Ui \.J1 \JJ ," t-..> ;) ... ""\ r m -\ -I n1 iU \f\ n1 -\ l\l W b> ~ c } ~ 11 ;-I o ~Im I I W i !I!!! ~ Iwi ~ ..~II .. ~I:I ~ laI ~ J 1 I I I ~ II ~ I !!l F I .. . UUIIIUHHHUUHU~~ I i\lh ,1I1I1 Illll 1111 II i ~ ~5 'l~~~ I i~ ~ ;> ~, I: ,~ ~ lil UUHHit!HHUt!U;; ~ ~ UUihilH AAIijH!h ~ rn if H - 1-1 - 3;-1 gm ~~~:J; ::u ~n...(fl ~ · m ~ B 0 ~ r ~ I~ ~ ~ Ii1 li/ l 'l' \JJ ~ ~ 'U f 1: C . i ~~ ~~~ ~i ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ o~ r,~~ '~i fo f :1: r-J m? ill ~~ ~~~ i~ ~~ ~~ ~ h · ~ ~ ~ Is" h ~.. ~~ ~ Ip ~ o' ~~~ l.la t '((!I '" P ~ :> ~ ~ O!i~ ~ ;it a ~ "~~ ~ Q ~ w _,,^ .fi,il Wff !" x' q III D (\ 1<" ~. ~ = tj ltij r1 nq ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ () ~~. ~Hn iPHP iH! 1 h ~ss h ~i ~~ ~ ~ i ~h ~~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~(6)3)~ REVISION O.U'E 1- t='-~ 1 SHEET t Of 1 SCAJ..E ~~~d CQlAPANION FIlLS , - , - l - " - U\ c ~ ~I 11 ;s () II' 0 ~ ~ }~iJ ~~i~ , "0 AI I ?E Cl 2 ~ 0; z "'~i' !>. ~,:t:~ Il- )> ffi iJi I'il ;a () :z: z ,}> 2 ,;0 ~ !>. ~ i ' :r n "' 1;1, ijl ~2~ tJ '}> I'il I ~ W 1(\ lJ! -" 1 OJ ... -I -" ~ ~ iJ; ~ Ul ('l 1-( I'il ~ ~;:;.. iJ --\ '-\ ('l ~ ~~~ !>. ]> .,. UJJt~ ~U> 1l "'<I 8~ ".,. ~j:; 1-< -;;I ;;~ \J1 16~ .~ j 1:1 /U 1'1 0 -l :1> (\ r lJI r 0 LC 3 0 c :3 .-.. ('Il Q lJI .-.. <T lJI , U\ lJI .-.. NAME DATE 0 iI:H : : i If II _ _ ;;; aUI -- - ~ "ll ~ ~ ~" I ;1" ~~ "~l --" , ~ ~ " ~I:I ~~s ,'\1 ~ ~ ::.-....- ~ 1:li II I . . . 14B-7: 2. All signs in the" CD" district shall receive review and approval from the Design dvisory Team. Signs in co pliance with applicable ordinances: For signs whic meet the regulations of the City's sign ordinances and the goals and objectives of the Downtown Revitaliza ion Plan, such review shall be given the weight ,of an admi istrative determination. Appeal of a determina ion by the Design Advisory Team shall be as provided fi r in Chapter 23 of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance a. b. Signs not i compliance with applicable ordinances: Signs whi h do not meet the regulations of the City's sign ordinance shall require review by the Board of Adjustme t and Appeals, as provided for in Chapter 23 of the Monti ello Zoning Ordinance, following Design Advisory earn review and recommendation. DESIGN REVIEW: All devel pment and redevelopment projects in the "CCD" district shall be subjec to design review for compliance with the goals and objectives of the Downto n Revitalization Plan. This subdivision identifies the process and app ication of design review recommendations. The City Council shal designate a Design Advisory Team (DAT) to carry out the require ents of this SuBdivision. The Council may delegate membership etermination to another private or public board. Said DAT sha I review projects within the "CCD" which propose new or altere buildings, site improvements, or signs. Site improvements shall i elude parking lots, landscaping projects (other than direct replacem nt of existing landscaping), walkways and open space plazas, or other outdoor projects affecting the visual impact of a site. [A] 1. Plans shall be s bmitted to the DAT for review no less than seven (7) days p . or to a DAT meeting. An applicant shall submit at least ix (6) sets of plans. The DAT meeting shall be open to the publ c, but shall not constitute a "public hearing" within the mea 'ng of the zoning ordinance. 2. Submitted plan shall be sufficiently detailed to identify proposed materi Is, colors, locations, and any other factors relating to the sual impact of the proposal. Such plans may include: Site PI s, Floor Plans, Building Elevations, Rendered Drawings, Mate . als Samples, and other appropriate submissions. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE ,-,1 148/6