IDC Agenda 08-18-1988
.
AGEND
MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL
Thursday, Augu
City Ha
EVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
18, 1988 - 7:00 AM
MEMBERS: Chairperson Shelly iohnson, Don Smith, Lowell Schrupp,
Harvey Kendall, Dale Lungwitz, Ron Hoglund, Jay Morrell,
Rick Wolfsteller, Li da Mielke, Dan Carlson, Arve Grimsmo,
Dennis Taylor, and Ollie Koropchak.
STAFF MEMBER: Jeff O'Neill
1. CALL TO ORDER.
2. APPROVAL OF THE JULY 21, 1 88 IDC MINUTES.
3. PROSPECT REPORT.
4. CONSIDERATION TO UPDATE TH IDC BANQUET PLANS.
5. CONSIDERATION TO REVIEW PR LIMINARY PROPOSED 1989
CITY (ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BUDGET.
.
6. CONSIDERATION TO REVIEW PR POSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT,
REGULATING TYPE OF EXTERIO BUILDING CONSTRUCTION.
7. CONSIDERATION TO REVIEW PR POSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ON
LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS.
8. CONSIDERATION TO REVIEW TH FOLLOWING REPORTS:
A. REVOLVING LOAN FUND
B. RESULTS OF CITY'S ATITUDE SURVEY
C. HRA'S PROPOSED BUDG T REQUEST
9. OTHER BUSINESS.
10. ADJOURNMENT.
.
.
.
.
MINUTES
MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Thursday, July 21, 1988 - 7:00 AM
City Hall
MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice Preside t Don Smith, Dennis Taylor, Jay
Morrell, Bud Schrupp, Arve Grimsmo, Dan Carlson,
Dale Lungwita, Ron Hoglund, and Ollie Korpchak.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairperson S elly Johnson, Harvey Kendall,
Rick Wo1fste ler,-and Linda Mielke.
STAFF MEMBER PRESENT: Jeff 0' eill.
1. CALL TO ORDER.
Vice President Don Smith called the IDC meeting to order at
7:07 AM.
2. APPROVAL OF THE JUNE 16, 1988 IDC MINUTES.
A motion to approve the Ju e 16, 1988 IDC minutes was made by
Arve Grimsmo and seconded y Bud Schrupp. With no further
discussion, the minutes stand approved as read.
3. CONSIDERATION TO WELCOME DENNIS TAYLOR AS A MEMBER OF THE IDC.
Vice President Don Smith elcomed new member Dennis Taylor,
Taylor Land Surveyors, Inc., to the committee, expressing
his professional expertise will be an asset to the committee.
4.
PROSPECT REPORT.
Koropchak reiterated the ritten prospect report and additionally
asked the committee's respectiveness to a possible infectious
waste plant construction. Koropchak reported that Mr. Art
Fretag of North Central La oratories, Inc. stopped by the
office and together with Gary Anderson, Mr. Fretag told of
his plans for a 15,000 sq ft building which would include
an Atlas incinerator and drive-in unloading area. Infectious
waste is bio-medical and i cludes blood products, pathologist
waste (tissue), laboratory waste, sharps, and animal waste.
The facility would meet Pollution Control Agency regulations.
Cannon Falls has a facilit and Mr. Fretag has approached
Plymouth, Lino Lakes, Mou dsview, and Maple Grove, however,
the community responded u favorably. The committee left the
doors open for additional information, and asked Koropchak
to check out the other co unities contacted and Cannon Falls.
She was asked to check the respectiveness of potential
neighbors in the industrial park (1-2) and to research the
safety of the ash or residue. The City Council will give
input on Monday evening.
Koropchak asked for the co ittee's respectiveness to the
Resource Recovery Facility for Wright County. Mayor Grimsmo
responded, it makes the most sense to locate it over next
to Yonak Landfill in the township. With insufficient information,
the committee asked to have John Simola at the next meeting
.
4. CONTINUED.
IDe Minutes - 7/21/88
for additional informatio and thereafter, will give input.
The committee suggested i
wish to proceed with a Mo
representatives and city
Hoglund and son, Tom of B
a possible solution to pu
On the initial visit the
in the Hoglund property b
the access of rail. The
estate representative was
acres as one parcel.
5.
the potential grocery supplier
ticello location, that the company
taff meet with the owners, Gladys
g Lake, and their attorney for
chase and development of the land.
ompany was and still is most interested
cause of the freeway exposure and
esponse from the Hoglund's real
the Hoglund's prefer to sale the 72.5
CONSIDERATION TO REVIEW T E JOINT MEETING HELD JUNE 30, 1988.
The IDC felt the joint me ting held June 30th was well
attended and stimulated g od discussions. The IDC agreed
on the importance in deve oping a new logo and new promotional
information for Monticell .
Jeff O'Neill presented the IDC with a copy of the proposed ordinance
amendment regulating type of exterior building construction
(industrial/commercial structure restrictions) which have
been presented to the PIa ing Commission. Two major area
of changes would be for steel buildings with public visibility
to contain 2/3 brick covering. Increase to construction cost
could be 20-25%. And the ther major change would be the
the prohibition of pole sh d/buildings. Vice President Smith
advised the committee memb rs to review the proposed
amendments for discussion t the August meeting.
.
.
Jeff presented the IDC wit'
survey permit fees with a
said the city philosophy i
because the certificate of
by the plan review,the cer
The committee felt a surve
the older part of the city
Dennis Taylor expressed hi
problem with location of a
property is staked than st
are staked and removed; th
therefore guesses; fourth,
move house or buy addition
asked if the building insp
replacing of those corner
felt the certificate of su
the developer, builder, or
was made by Ron Hoglund fo
comprehensive check list w
for a certificate of surve
Taylor and check with othe
to be presented to the Cit
a copy of the:new proposed residential
otal reduction of 21%. Jeff
to recap city cost, however, .
survey included duplications covered
ificate of survey was eliminated.
would be more beneficial in
than in new developed areas.
viewpoints of the City's
building on a lot. One,
kes removed; two, utilities
rd, builder wants to save money
owner left with solution either
1 property. The question was
ctor's responsibility included
takes? Some committee members
ey was the responsibility of
owner not the city. A motion
Jeff O'Neill to develop a
ich would determine the merit
Jeff is to work with Dennis
communities. The recommendation
Council on Monday, July 25th.
IDC Minutes - 7/21/88
.
5. CONTINUED.
The motion was seconded y Dale Lungwitz and with no further
discussion passed unanim us1y. Dennis Taylor felt the most
important thing in the c nstruction of a new home was a
certificate of survey whch protects the owner.
Vice President Smith expressed the IDC concerns for the
recommended solutions for the water and sewer hook up
charges. The IDC would like a address the issue as soon
as possible.
6.
CONSIDERATION TO REVIEW
The IDC accepted the writ
delay by a couple of week
community survey.
BOR SURVEY UPDATE AND COMMUNITY SURVEY.
en update of the labor market survey
and the IDC had no comment on the
7.
CONSIDERATION TO IMPLEMEN
Shelly Johnson, Don Smith
as a subcommittee to imp1
BAN UET, SEPTEMBER 19, 1988.
Ollie Koropchak will meet
the plans for the banquet.
8. CONSIDERATION TO REVIEW VOLVING LOAN FUND UPDATE.
The subcommittee as not m t since the last IDC meeting.
9. OTHER BUSINESS.
None
.
10. ADJOURNMENT.
Dale Lungwitz made a moti n to adjourn, seconded by Arve
Grimsmo, the motion passe unanimously. Meeting adjourned.
~Q.~ '~rJ\~~~~~
Ollie Koropchak
IDC Executive Secretary
.
BUILDING PERMIT FEE SURVEY - RECOMMENDED CHANGE
.PE OF CO\/STRUCT I ON - WXlD FRAME TYPE V
',vLL BASEMENT - UNFINISHED
TOTAL SQUARE FEET BLONG - 1300
JULY 21, 1988
1300 SQUARE FOOT RAMBLER
24x24 , GARAGE
M:)\jTI- SAINT ALBERT- BUF - BIG ELK WATER ROCK- AVE
CELLO MICHEAL VILLE ALL LAKE RIVER TOW\! FORD
1_- 58~500 --
INSPECTIO\I FEE 1 $460 $358 $358 $ $572 $386 $35a $419
REDUCED 10%
PLAN REVI EW* $199 $232 $232 $ $0 $143 $251 $232 $190
REDUCED 40%
SURCH . $36 $38 $38 $31 $43 $42 $38 $38
WATER HOOK-UP FEE $300 $600 $800 $388 $750 $400 $1,000 $542
METER/OTHER $100 $175 $185 $100 $75 $65 $90 $108
SEWER HOOK-UP FEE $300 $150 $475 $100 $388 $750 $300 $685 $393
SURVEY***
PLUMB .
MEa1ANICAL
ELECTRIC
.~PST
$0 $0 $25
$0 $40 $23
$0 $40 $18
$45 $45 $45
(500) $0 $0
(STRT DPST) $0
OTHER I PRK DED $0
============~======I========================--==- ======================================--==
TOTAL 1$1,458 $1,643 $2,178 $971 $1.451 $2,683 $1,489 $2,528 $1,800
% OF AVERAGE I 81% 91% 121% 4% 81% 149% 83% 140%
--------__________I.___________________________~ _____________________________________
1987 TAXES 1$1,250 $1,610 $1,761 $1,5 1 $1,907 $1,603 $1,607 $1,755 $1,626
I (Monticello provides garbag pick-up service)
I
1ST YR TAX + FEES 1$2,708
I
FIVE YEAR COST 1$7.708
(NOT INC SEWER/WATI
PERCENT OF AVERAGE I 78% 98% 111% 6% 111% 108% 96% 114% 100%
---------------_--1_____--------------------- ______________________________________1
$0
$19
$0
$45
$0
$0
$25
$20
$45
$0
$0
$25
$20
$45
$0
$0
$: 8
$0
$' 5
$0
$0
$0
$0
$45
$0
$200
$45
$60
$45
$0
$3.253 $3,939 $2.~ 2 $3,358 $4.286 $3,096 $4,283 $3,425
$9.693 $10,983 $8.5 6 $10,986 $10.698 $9.524 $11.303 $9.927
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED CHANGES
NEW TOTAL
PREVIOUS TOTAL FEES
NET REruCTI ON
% REDUCTION
$1,458
$1 ,842
$384
21%
*
Industrial/Commercial plan review to remain he same except that
Consulting fees in excess of 150% of plan re iew will be charged to Comm/lnd
.
Unit cost charge to remain at $300 for now.
*** Survey Required Under Following Cir'cumstance
Monumentation absent or true ocation of lot lines unclear.
Proposed set-back within 2 fe t of set-back minimum
"Drop" to City sewer service not clear or marginal.
IDC Agneda - 8/18/88
.
3. PROSPECT REPORT.
A progress report will be given on the following companies
at the meeting by John Si ola and myself.
A. Rescource Recovery Fa ility for Wright County - John Simola
B. Mantez - Ollie
C. Grocery Supplier
D. Ken Nielson, Business Development Properties
E. Wiman Apparel
F. Customized aint shop/c. nvention displays
G. Lake Tool
H. Dean Lonnquest, Mora
I. Art Fretag, Infectious Waste Facility
BUSINESS RETENTION:
A. Construction Five
B. Sunny Fresh Foods
.
.
IDC Agenda - 8/14/88
.
4. CONSIDERATION TO UPDATE THE IDC BANOUET PLANS.
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUNI .
Chairperson Shelly Johnson. Don Smith. and Ollie Koropchak
met on August 4th. to discu s preliminary plans for the IDC
Banquet scheduled for Monda. September 19. 1988 at the
Monte Club. Representative Bill Schreiber. Minority House
Leader. has responded posit vely as our guest speaker.
The subcommittee plans are 0 add some local input either
by individual industrial pr sentations and/or an industrial
trade show. Shelly and Don will report on the program
progress. Individual ticke lists. tickets. and a banquet
cover letter will be given )ut to IDC members on Thursday.
It's at the discretion of tpe ticket seller whether to
make use of the cover lette . however. please read it.
Tickets remain at $75 per p rson. Our ticket sales goal
is 125. remember this is ou sole fund raiser.
Enclosed are two menu optiorrs as prepared by Bruce Gagnelius
and myself; and previous bapquet budgets. Please choose
between Option A and Option B. Final details on the banquet
will be discussed at the September 15th IDC meeting.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTION.
.
1. Option A. deletes open bar. menu includes choice of filet w/mushrooms
or broiled shrimp serv~d with a craft of wine per table of six.
2. Option B. includes opel bar. menu includes choice of sirloin
steak. orange roughy. <r broiled chicken breast.
C. RECOMMENDATION.
None.
D. SUPPORTING DATA.
Menus and previous budgets
5. CONSIDERATION TO REVIEW PR LIMINARY PROPOSED 1989 CITY
(ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT) BUD ET.
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROU D.
The City Department Heads
wish list for capital outl
presented to the City Coun
Administerator. Budget i
Development Department wer
ave been asked to compile a
y expenditures. This is being
il this 7:00 AM by the City
ems requested as Economic
.
Revolving Loan Fund tr nsfer from Liquor Store Fund
Logo. brochure. fact s eets. and video tape
Consultant Fees
File and dictaphone
$200.000.
$ 20.000.
$ 10.000.
$ 700.
.
.
.
~
~
~
E-<,--..,
~-l-l
~ Cf.l
ow
~6
~
o
00 0
oo..-i
0'1 '-'
..-i
~
z
o
H
E-<
p..,
o
<:
z
o
H
E-<
p..,
o
o
o
o
o
M
m-
~
E-<
~
....:i
~
A
~
~
Z
~
p..,
o
~
Z"
H..-i
~
rz..
OLr)
0'1
E-< .
~~
U
o
o
Lr)
00
-Efr
x
c
o
Cf.l
l-l
IZl W
~ P.
p::j
?- l-l
~ W
~ P.
o
Lr)
01'
IZl N
p::jm-
o
:z:
o
o
Lr)
"
N
o
o
Lr)
"
N
,-..
N
o
--r
..-i
I
N
..-i
'-'
~
~
E-<
IZl
ZO
HLr)
o
~~
H
IZl
p::j
~
Z
Z
H
o
~
0,-..
o
p::j ~J
:z: 0
IZl
2~
'-'
____ Lr)
~~O'I
U
E-<~O
~<:..-i
....:i1Zl-EA-
H
rz..
,-..
N
o
N
..-i
'-'
~
C,!)
~
~
Lr)
~O'\
C,!)
~~
o
A
~
....:i
H
g
~
C,!)
~
:>
.......
E-<
CI)
<:
~
p::j
~
Z
~
~
U
H
::r:
U
ALr)
~O'I
....:i
HLr)
om-
p::j
~
~
H
p::j
:z:
CI)
o
o
00
Lr)
"
o
o
.
Lr)
o
Lr)
..-i
-<A-
~
E-<
o
E-<
~
~
CI)
o
o
M
M
M
..-i
-EA-
~
o
E-<
~
~
CI)
o
o
o
00
..-i
~
N
..-i
><
E-<
H
~
E-<
~
C,!)
o
o
o
1,0
..-i
o
o
("1"\
0'\
--r
..-i
m-
~
N
..-i
><
E-<
H
~
E-<
~
C,!)
~
E-<
o
E-i
o
o
Lr)
00
1,0
"'
..-i
-Efr
~
E-<
o
E-<
IZl
E-<
~
C,!)
A
~
~
CI)
~
o
H
:>
~
p::j
p..,
o
o
"
("1"\
o
N
-EA-
~I
p::j
~
E-<
CI)
l'Q
o
H Cf.l
-l-l
~~
'M
~-l-l
~Lr)
E-<O
Cfl..-i
Lr)
00
1,0
00
o
N
m-
~I
p::j
~
E-<
Cfl
jJ:I
o
....:i Cf.l
-l-l
A W
~~
OM
~~
E-<..-i
Cfl..-i
Lr)
"
--r
N
M
~I
"'
..-i
m-
Cf.l
-l-l
W
~
E-i ()
~ OM
rz..-l-l
rz..
~("I"\
~O'\
.
5. CONTINUED.
IDC Agenda - 8/18/88
One item of IDC interest wh"ch isn't on the wish list is a
reserve fund for a labor su: vey update in year 1993. The
IDC can place in reserve ea h year $1,000 for a labor survey
or request of the proposed 993 City Budget the monies for
the labor surveyor balance of the cost. Star City recert-
ification requirements call for five year labor survey
updates, video tape updates, fact sheets, and brochures.
Each year the community's m yor signs a letter stating
his community's interest to remain in the Star City program.
The IDC budget doesn't allo to keep current the Star
City requirements because of increase to the Economic
Development Director's sala y and the increase in the
banquet cost; and the decre se banquet tickets sold,
a lower percentage of contributions by the City and the
Chamber of Commerce to the IDC compared to the salary
increase. I'm requesting t e above listed monies from the
City Budget because of the easons stated above or the
Council may want to recons! er Monticello's status as a
Star City. I don't believe the City should remain in a
program unless they are willing to meet the requirements.
I see the program as a benefit, however, recognize the
Star City program benefits to communities has changed
since Monticello became a Star City in 1982.
.
Does the IDC have any additional input or request?
6.
CONSIDERATION TO REVIEW PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMDENDMENT
REGULATING TYPE OF EXTERIO BUILDING CONSTRUCTION.
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROU . (J.O.)
The concept of amending the Zoning Ordinance as outlined
was initiated by the Plann ng Commission and presented at
the joint meeting of the H /City Council/IDC and Planning
Commission. It was the ge .eral consensus of the group to
discuss the concept furthe and develop an amendment accordingly.
The Planning Commission reiewed a first draft derived from the
City of Waconia Zoning Ord !nance at the July 12, 1988 meeting.
The Planning Commission was informed that the regulations would
add 20% to the cost of a bilding comprised entirely of metal.
No formal action taken on ~he first draft. During the review
of the first draft, the folowing suggestions were made:
* The Planning Commission thought it appropriate that the
Commission review site pans but felt that a process should
be in place whereby an a plicant can appeal the Planning
Commission decision to t e City Council.
.
.
.
.
6.
CONTINUED.
* It was suggested that 1
of structures be elimin
structural design does
value of the exterior 0
IDC Agenda - 8/18/88
nguage restricting wood pole support
ted as this type of internal building
ot necessarilly impact the aesthetic
the structure.
* Planning Commission dir cted staff to get additional input
from the body of the ID and HRA prior to further consider-
ation of the matter.
HRA REVIEW 8/10/88 (J.D.)
The HRA reviewed the propo ed amendment (first draft) and were
informed that the amendmen will result in a 20% to 25% cost
increase associated with d velopment of a steel building.
Following summarizes the d1scussion.
* Ken Maus stated that 20 ing Ordinance Amendments are not within
the domain of the HRA, owever he appreciates being provided
the opportunity to give input.
* It was noted that prohibiting buildings made exclusively of
metal may be too restrictive as buildings made entirely
of metal can meet reason ble aesthetic standards if done
properly. It was sugges ed that 100% metal buildings be
prohibited only if the d sign does not meet a reasonable
aesthetic standards. H requested that language be added
to the ordinance which d fines reasonable aesthetic standards
for 100% metal buildings
* The HRA concurred with t e Planning Commission that pole
buildings be allowed as ong as the exterior of the structure
meets reasonable aesthe ic standards.
INPUT FROM AN IDC MEMBER U ABLE TO ATTEND THE MEETING
* Shelly Johnson stated t he would like a quality industrial
park, however, if the's goal is to keep industrial
development's cost at a ompetitive level, the 20% estimated
increase in construction costs for 2/3 brick frontage on a
metal building doesn't s pport that goal. If a company can't
construct an entire meta! building in Monticello. they can
elsewhere.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTION.
1. Table the item, or ignor.
2. Discuss item, make reco endation to the Planning Commission.
3. Discuss item, make no r commendation to the Planning Commission.
.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
Jeff O'Niell and I agree
should be allowed as long
meets a predefined standa
suitable language which p
Recommendation to Plannin
language establishing a r
buildings comprised entir
D. SUPPORTING DATA.
IDC Agenda - 8/18/88
ith the HRA. 100% metal buildings
as the exterior facing public view
d. The challenge will be in developing
operly defines the standard.
Commission to revise draft to include
asonable aesthetic standard for
ly of metal.
Proposed Ordinance Amendm nt Regulating Type of Exterior
Building Construction (Se ond draft, based on Planning
Commission inital input).
7. CONSIDERATION TO REVIEW PR POSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ON
LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS.
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROU
.
Following is a first draft
portion of the zoning ordi
Commission at their August
support and agreement. Th
conducted at the joint mee
Industrial Development Co
pages are proposed additio
proposed amendments are de,
of an amendment to the landscaping
ance as presented to the Planning
2 meeting which received general
language changes stem from discussion
ing of the HRA/Planning Commission/
ittee. Highlighted on the attached
s/amendments to the ordinance. The
igned to accomplish the following:
1) Provide flexibility by allowing landscaping to be expanded/
developed as perimeter of developed area expands.
2) Provides Council with he option of allowing phasing-in
of landscaping over th ee year time period thus reducing
initial development co: t.
The ordinace amendments as proposed do not accomplish the
following:
1) Reduce landscaping req irements or attempt to differentiate
requirements for comme cial property versus industrial
property.
2) Ordinance amendment do, s not establish firm criteria for
deciding which develop ent s will be allowed to phase
installation of landsc ping over a three year period.
The HRA hasn't received or reviewed the said proposed amendment
and Mr. Johnson had no co ents on the said proposed amendment.
.
(Second Draft)
(0) INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE RESTRICTIONS
1.
PURPOSE: The purpose of th's section is to assure
that buildings in commerci 1 and Industrial areas of
Monticello will be accept ble in both visual and
functional terms. To that end, this section
identifies permitted buil ing materials which are
durable and long lasting nd which generally present
an attractive visual appe ranee as compared to less
durable materials.
.
2.
APPLICATION: The provisio
apply to all new structur
remodeling and to all de
zoned for commercial and
city of Monticello.
s of this section shall
s including additions or
elopments within areas
ndustrial use within the
.
No improvements (as herei defined) shall be erected,
placed or altered on any uilding site until the
building or other improve ent plans and
specifications, have bee submitted to and approved
in writing by the Montie 110 planning commission as
to conformity and harmon of external design with
existing structures in he development giving due
regard to the anticipate use as it may affect
adjoining structures, an as to location of the
improvement with respect to topography, grade and
finished ground elevatio. Denial of site plan
appro~al ma be a ealed to the City council
follow{ng the variance a peals process out in
23-6 G through I 0 t e ontlce 0 onlng nee.
3. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN: exterior architectural
appearance of the propo structure shall not be at
variance with the exter'or architectural appearance
of existing structures ithin the immediate area
taking into considerati n building materials, size,
shape and heights, so a to cause an adverse impact
upon property values in the immediate area and the
City as a whole,. Mech nical equipment, such as
furnaces, air condition rs, elevator, transformers,
and utility equipment, hall be screened, whether on
roof or mounted on the round, with a screening
material similar to or . ompatible with material used
on the main structure. All additions or remodeling
shall be compatible in scale, material and masking.
4.
PERMITTED MATERIALS: tructural systems of all
buildings shall be as equired by the Uniform
Building Code. Materi ls shall not be so at variance
with the exterior mate ials of the existing
structures within the mmediate area or the City a
whole as to adversely mpact the property values in
the affected area or t e City as a whole, or
adversely affect the p blic health, safety and
general welfare.
.
Exterior building fini hes shall consist of materials
comparable in grade an quality to the following:
0.!!t.J 1.0 "\
\ ~>'\J Ordtt)
page number titles
.'
(0. Continued)
.
a. Brick
b. Natural
page number title
c. Precast con rete units and concrete
block, pro ided that surfaces are
molded, serrated examples or treated
with a text red material in order to
give the surface a three-dimensional
character.
d. Wood, provi ed surfaces are finished for
exterior us and only woods of proven
exterior durability are used such as
cedar, red od and cypress.
Curtain wall panels of steel, fiberglass
and aluminu , (non structural , non-load
bearing), p ovided such panels are
factory fabricated and finished with a
permanent d rable non-face surface and
their faste ers are of a corrosion
resistant d sign and provided further
than no mor than one-third of the wall
surface facing a public street or
interstate reeway or adjacent to a
residential or public area, consist of
such panels.
e.
4. PROHIBITED MATERIALS:
f. Glass Curta'n wall panels.
.
a. Face materi Is which rapidly deteriorate
or become u sightly such as galvenized
metal, unfi ished structural clay tile
and metal p nels not factory finished
with a perm nent surface.
b. buildings c mprised exclusively of
metal.
c. Sheet metal, plastic or fiberglass
siding, unl ss such siding is a
component 0 a factory fabricated and
finished pa el.
(K.k jtfuc..
~-tk~1 Ste-
uR.{S
10"'"
e.//fVIl.... f1. tc.d fro""",, ~
;^ 2...cJ Uro./-f )
IDC Agenda - 8/18/88
.
Inorder to give you the total picture regarding the landscaping,
the entire section of the ordinance is in your packet. Sections
of the ordinance proposed for amendments are underlined.
B. ACTION REQUESTED.
Review proposed ordinance and provide feedback for the Planning
Commission.
C. SUPPORTING DATA.
Proposed ordinance amendm nt on landscaping requirements.
8. CONSIDERATION TO REVIEW T E FOLLOWING REPORTS:
A. REVOLVING LONA FUND - the subcommittee met Wednesday,
August 17, 1988 and c, mpleted the first draft of the
RLF policies. The su committee will finalize the first
draft after contactin! Dave Nelson, DTED,; contacting
legal advise; and det, rmine administration staff. The
subcommittee agreed t inform the City Council at the 1989
budget meeting of the1ir intent and to request that $200,000
of the Liquor Store ~ nd be earmarked for the initial
revolving loan fund pool.
HRA's PROPOSED BUDGE
the members unanimou
and are requesting t
for working capital.
be $55.000. The HRA
taxable levy.
SURVEY - to be presented by
---....
B. RESULTS OF CITY'S
Jeff O'Neill.
C.
At the August HRA meeting,
ly voted to exercise their levy power
'e City to levy 1/2 mill in 'year 1989
Estimated taxable levy amount would
s 1988 mill rate was .068 or $7.750
-...
.. _ __".:J '-.-.
.
.
.
(110 C t..4.""7~~"'{;#tG.'~ )
(G)
3.
o
In all zoning districts the lot area remaining after
providing for off-street pa king, off-street parking,
off-street loading, sidewal s, driveways, building
site and/or other requireme ts shall be planted and
maintained in grass sodding, shrubs or other
acceptable vegetation or tr atment generally used in
landscaping. Fences or tre s placed upon utility
easements are subject to re oval if required for the
maintenance or improvement f the utility. Trees on
utility easements containin overhead wires shall not
exceed ten (10) feet in hei, ht.
REQUIRED FENCING, SCREENING AND
SCAPING:
The fencing and screening requir d by this subsection
shall be subject to Subsection ( ) above and shall consist
of either a fence or a landscape planting plan.
1. PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this policy is
to establish minimum requir ments and standards
relative to landscaping, bu fering and screening to
be implemented concurrently with site plans approved
by the City; the standards nd criteria shall be used
by City staff, Planning Co ,ission and City Council
in the review and evaluatio of such plans and
development proposals.
The objectives of these req irements are to establish
and maintain forestation of the City; to provide
appropriate ground cover ve etation for controlled
soil erosion; to enhance wh n necessary the natural
environment particularly in instances where the
natural environment is dist rbed during the course of
development; and, to establ sh standards for
utilization of natural mate ials to achieve desired
screening and bUffering.
This policy sets forth mini
landscaping, reforestation
to assure that the result i
reasonable maintenance requ
basis and to assure that th
aesthetic urban environment.
2.
DETAILED LANDSCAPE PLANS:
shall be required in all ca
approval is specified by th
Subdivision Ordinance. The
based upon the site plan de
approval and, to assure cla
plan be produced on a separ
containing grading, drainag
urn requirements of
nd technical limitations
consistent with
rements on a long-term
results provided an
etailed landscape plans
es where site plan
Zoning Ordinance and
landscape plan should be
igns submitted for
ity, it is required the
te sheet from that
, and utility plans.
( I/b Lha.,....jt!.s r/1r;'/4J~)
@
Detailed landscape plans shall include the following
information:
.
(a) GENERAL :
i. Name and address of developer/owner.
of architect/designer.
ii.
Name and
iii. Date of plan preparation.
iv. Dates and desc iption of all revisions.
v. Name of projec or development.
vi. Scale of plan engineering scale only,
at 1 inch equa s 50 feet or less).
vii. North point in ication.
(b) THE SITE ANALYSIS:
i. Boundary lines of property with
dimensions bas d upon certified survey.
ii. Name and align ent of proposed and
existing adjac nt on-site streets.
.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
ix.
.
x.
Location of ex sting and proposed
utility rights f-way, easements and
lines (water, as, electric).
Location of ex sting and proposed
building.
Topographic co tours of the minimum
interval of 2 eet, extending at least
100 feet beyon the site boundaries.
Location of ex sting and proposed
parking faci1i ies including curbing
detail and tra fic island-delineators.
Location of ex sting and proposed water
bodies.
Location of ex sting and proposed
sidewalks, tra 1 corridors and fire
lanes.
Other existing or proposed conditions
which would be expected to affect
landscaping.
Percentage of ross site area not
covered by str ctures and pavement.
{ IJ" c hlL~i ~ 5 pi 1..,- <; /&./ ( )
(c) LANDSCAPE DATE:
.
i.
Planting schedu
symbols, quanti
botanical names
material, root
B & B, potted,
planting instru
ii.
Existing trees
locations, co
size.
@)
e (table) containing
ies, common names,
sizes of plant
pecification (b.r.,
tc.) and special
tions.
nd schrubbery,
n names and approximate
iii. planting detail (show all species to
scale at normal mature crown diameter or
spread for loca hardiness zone.)
iv. Typical section in details of fences,
tie walls, plan er boxes, totlots,
picnic areas, b rms and the like.
v.
Typical section
and planter bed
materials used.
of landscape islands
with identification of
vi. Details of pIa ting beds and foundation
plantings.
.
Note indicatin how disturbed soil areas
will be restor d through the use of
sodding, seedi g or other techniques.
vii.
viii .
Delineation of both sodded an seeded
areas with res ective areas in square
feet.
ix. Coverage plan or underground irrigation
system, if any
x. Exterior light ng plan.
(d) SPECIAL CONDITIONS: ere landscape or man-made
materials are used to rovide ordinance or
policy-required screen ng from adjacent and
neighboring properties a cross-through section
shall be prOVided show ng the perspective of the
site from the neighbor ng property at the
property line elevatio .
.
@
(e) COPIES: The following opies shall be provided
in the following format.
'-",
i.
.
Blue prints at ull-scale and size as
the site plan.
ii. One 8 1/2" by 1 " photopositive
reduction or on 8 1/2" xlI"
reproducible dr wing which will provide
legible copies clearly representing all
details and design on the plan.
Otherwise, to ssure legibility, 30
copies of the roposed landscape plan,
folded to appr ximate 9" x 12" shall be
submitted; pet'tioners may submit both
reduced and la ger size legible copies
to assure such plans are available to
planning Commi sioners and council
Members.
3. ELEMENTS OF LANDSCAPE DESIG AND MINIMUM NUMBER OF
TREES:
(a) Elements of landscape esign may include:
i. Existing topog aphical and vegetative
features;
ii. Berming
.
iii.
planting, incl ding the required minimum
number of over, tory trees, understory
trees, shrubs, flowers, and ground eover
materials.
(b) The minimum number of ajor or overstory trees
on any given site shall be as indicated below.
These are the minimum substantial planting, in
addition to other und rstory trees, shrubs,
flowers and ground eo er deemed appropriate for
a complete quality la dscape treatment of the
site.
i.
.
Corranercial, I
sites shall e
greater of on
feet of gross
one (1) tree
perimeter. W
exceeds build ng
perlmeter s a
which exten s
ard setback
beyond side a
primary or ac
lor''!
AMl......J JIYI.(. V\.r
ii. Multi-residen ial sites shall contain at
a minimum one (1) tree per dwelling
unit.
.
.
.
l n. [,h"~r \
t-h~S
fG.r<)
~
(c) An equivalent of up t fifty percent (50%) of
the required number 0 overstory trees may be
created through the use of overstory trees in
combination with other landscape design
elements as listed in 3 (a) above.
In no case shall the n mber of overstory trees
be less than fifty percent (50%) of the
appropriate formula. T e burden shall be upon
the developer to demon trate by narrative and by
graphics how the equiv lent effect is provided.
the equivalent effect hall be subject to
approval by the City uncil.
4. MINIMUM SIZE OF PLANTINGS:
(a) Required trees
planting size:
of the following minimum
i. Deciduous tree - 2.5 inches diameter as
measured six i ches above the ground.
ii.
Coniferous tre
in height.
(b) A minimum of fifteen ( 5) percent of the
required minimum numbe of trees for
multi-residential deve opments shall be
long-lived hardwood de iduous trees, 3.5 inches
in diameter as measure six inches off the
ground.
( c)
Evergreen shrubs used
including those used i
shall be a minimum of
5 . SPECIES:
or screening purposes
conjunction with berming
4 inches in height.
(a) All trees used in site developments shall be
indigenous to the appr priate hardiness zone and
physical characteristi s of the site.
(b) All deciduous trees pr posed to satisfy the
minimum requirements 0 this policy shall be
long-lived hardwood sp cies.
(c)
The complement of tree
requirements of this p
than 25 percent decidu
percent coniferous.
fulfilling the
licy shall be not less
us and not less than 25
(I}/) 0~tt-Ai t f
h'-5
"f ?
~
6.
SODDING AND GROUND COVER:
improved in accordance wit
be sodded. Exceptions to t
recommended by the Plannin
by the City Council as fol
All areas not otherwise
approved site plans shall
is criterion may be
Commission and approved
owing:
.
(a) Seeding of future exp nsion areas as shown on
approved plans.
(b) Undisturbed area cont ~n~ng existing viable
natural vegetation wh ch can be maintained free
of foreign and noxiou plant materials.
(c) Areas designated as 0 en space or future
expansion area proper'y planted and maintained
with prairie grass.
(d) Use of mulch material such as bark, rock mulch
over 4 mil poly and w od chips in support of
schrubs and foundatio plantings.
7. SLOPES AND BERM:
(a) Final slope grades ste per than the ratio of
3.5:1 will not be per itted without special
approval treatment sua as terracing or
retaining walls.
.
(b) Berming used to provid required effective
screening of parking 1 ts and other open areas
shall have slope ratio of 3:1.
8. WOODLAND AND PRESERVATION P LICY AND CREDIT:
(a) It is the policy 'of th City of Monticello to
preserve the natural f rest, and woodland areas
throughout the City, a d with respect to
specific site developm nt to retain, as far as
practicable, substanti 1 tree stands which
should be incorporated into the site.
(b) Credit for the retenti n of existing trees which
are of acceptable spec es, size and location may
be given to satisfy th minimum number
requirements set forth in this policy and in the
City Ordinances.
(c)
Where conventional mul
clearly demonstrate af
toward the preservatio
desirable natural site
500 square feet per dw
subtracted from the mi
so as to allow up to n
unit per acre.
i-residential projects
irmative design efforts
and enhancement of
characteristics, up to
lling unit may be
imum area requirements,
t more than one dwelling
.
l/)o C /",_,l5
~A:~
if )
<1
.
(d) ~fuere commercial, indu trial and institutional
uses clearly demonstra e affirmative design
efforts toward the pre ervation and enhancement
of desirable natural s.te characteristics,
ordinance required pav d parking spaces may be
reduced and installati n deferred until such
time as the need for t e full complement of
parking. The need sha I be determined in
conformance with the " roof of parking" plan so
approved by the City.
9. USE OF LANDSCAPING FOR SCRE NING: Where natural
materials such as trees or edges are approved in
lieu of required screening y means of wall or
fences, the density and spe ies of such plantings
shall be such to achieve 90 percent opacity
year-around.
10. USE OF LANDSCAPING FOR SCRE NING - INTERSTATE HIGHWAY
EXPOSURE:
i.
(a) The City of Monticello recognizes the value of
Interstate Highway exp sure to commercial and
industrial developers. The City also wishes to
avoid the undesirable onotony of fully exposed
building sides and rea s, and wishes to provide
natual visual variety 0 the travelers on the
Interstate. Natural v sual variety will
alleviate the boredom or travelers and will
project a clean and pI asant image of the City
of Monticello. Cammer ial and industrial
developers of lots/par els having substantial
exposure to the Inters; ate shall be required to
landscape/screen to pr vide 60% opacity
year-around, at least 0% of said screening to
be of natural material .
(b)
Residential developmen
substantial exposure t
required to landscape/
percent opacity year-a,
said screening to be 0
on lots/parcels having
the Interstate shall be
creen to provide 90
ound, at least 75% of
natural materials.
(c) All landscape/screenin plans for lots and
parcels having substantial exposure to the
Interstate Highway must give design
consideration to the ifferences in elevation
between the Interstat and the parcel subject to
development, understa ding that parcels lower
than the Interstate n cessarily require taller
screening to be effec ive in providing visual
variety and the requi ed percentage of opacity.
.
11.
PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING: T
monotony, heat and wind ass
lots, such lots shall have
landscaped area/island-deli
required traffic safety isl
5,000 square feet of off-st
the first 5,000 square feet
equal in size to a single p
bounded by concrete curbing
in approved traffic safety
parking spaces from driving
area. The internal landsca
above may be deleted if the
of individual requirement.
.
12 . AGREEMENT AND BOND:
avoid the undesirable
ciated with large parking
minimum of one internal
eator in addition to any
nd, for each additional
eet parking space after
such islands shall be
rking space and shall be
Trees may be installed
slands used to delineate
aisles and in other
ed island(s) required
aggregate area and trees
(a) An agreement will be s gned between the City and
the owner which states that in exchange for
issuance of a building permit the owner will
construct, install, an maintain all items shown
on the approved plan a d that he will replace
and/or correct any def'ciencies or defaults that
occur in the plan for period of one complete
year or two complete g OWing seasons subsequent
to the installation of the landscaping plan. A
landscaping performanc bond will be submitted
along with the agreeme t at this time. Upon
petition by developer, the City Council may
a ow phasing-in of ~nstallation of required
an scap~ng over a perl d of three years in
or er to re uce ~n~t~a eve opment costs. Terms
of the phased ~nsta at on 0 an scap~ng to e
rncorporate ~nto tea reement.
Ie
(b)
After one complete year
if all the commitments
be taken to release bot
agreement.
or two growing seasons
re met, then steps may
the bond and contract
According to ordinance he developer/owner is
responsible for maintai ing the landscaping in a
neat and proper fashion
Further, the screening
effective continually,
which dies or ceases to
shall be replaced or re
conform to City Ordinan
s expected to remain
o nay plant material
function as a screen
nforced immediately to
e.
13. A required screening all be constructed of
masonry, brick, wood or stee. Such fence shall
provide a solid screening ef ect and not exceed eight
(8) feet in height or be les than six (6) feet in
height. The design and mater als used in constructing
a required screening fence s all be subject to the
approval of the Planning Co ission based upon a
recommendation by the City E gineer and Building
Inspector.
e
~
?tOi~jl J
,/J",. t ..... ...-..
.
(e
e
{ ". c-t,...._, < < J k; < p~ 'f )
@.
(H)
GLARE: Any lighting used to illu inate off-street parking
area, sign or other structure, sh 11 be arranged as to
deflect light away from any adjoi ing residential zone or
from the public streets. Direct r sky-reflected glare,
where from flood-lights or from h'gh temperature processes
such as combustion or welding sha 1 not be directed into
any adjoining property. The sour e of lights shall be
hooded or controlled in some man r so as not to cast
light on adjacent property. Bare incandescent light bulbs
shall not be permitted in view of adjacent property or
public right-of-way. Any light 0 combination of lights
which cast light on a public stre t shall not exceed one
(1) foot candle (meter reading) a measured from the
center line of said street. Any light or combination of
lights which cast light on reside tial property shall not
exceed 0.4 foot candles (meter r ading) as measured from
said property.
(I) SMOKE: The emission of smoke by any use shall be in
compliance with and regulated by the State of Minnesota
Pollution Control Standards, Min esota Regulation APC
1-15 .
(J) DUST AND OTHER PART1CULATED MATT The emission of dust,
fly ash, or other particulated m tter by any use shall be
in compiance with the regulated y the State of Minnesota
Pollution Control Standards, Min esota Regulation APC
1-15.
(K)
NOISE:
1. All noise shall be muffled 0 as not to be
objectionable due to interm ttence, beat frequency or
shrillness and as measured t any property line,
shall not exceed the follow ng intensity in relation
to sound frequency