Loading...
IDC Agenda 10-04-2005AGENDA MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 7:00 a.m. Academy Room -Monticello Community Center MEMBERS: Chair D son, Vice Chair Pain ~~achter Tom ~uist, arger, Bill ~~ "~er, Dick Van Allen, Do~rts, Mike~e edetto, Ba b Schwientek, Ly~e~Dahl, Don Tomann, To n~'aski, Kelli ford, and Sue ckness. STAFF: Rick Wolfsteller, Jeff O'Neill, John Simola, and Ollie Koropchak. COUNCIL LIAISON: Mayor~rC'l l rbst and Council Member yne Mayer. IDC MISSION STATEMENT: To maintain and increase the industrial tax base and to create jobs in the City of Monticello, Minnesota. 7:00 a.m. l . Call to Order. (Please read the minutes and information prior to the meeting.) 7:02 2. Vote to approve the September 6, 2005 IDC minutes. ~~,~~~ ~~ Y 7:05 3. Mayor's City Update: ' ~,~.~~ A. Proposed 1-94 and County Road l8 Interchange Project. '~~-^~~~~ ~---~:- Council awards contract for Interchange Project -Oct 3, 2005 2. Council authorizes City Attorney to offer city industria] sitepa~ ~ .,~ Qv-©''~~ AVR package. ~~,~, ~~~-~ t v 3. City calls for publi Ohearing to re-zone approximate 12-acre site from ~ . t ,~~-~,',~(~~ II-A (Light Industrial) to I2 (He vy Industrial) Otter reek~Cr~oSS~ing for ~~°--~ r ~ purpose of AVR relocation.. ~.~,~ ,cr ~ ~. ~~~ ~ B. Jefferson at Monticello anc~Popular Hi s re~~ dentia e~elo ~,~--~--- Status of YMCA property. Q ~ w (1, `~ ~ ..~p ~4~ D. Fiber Option Task Force. ~~ ~ Aft '~ .; c~ `r"~ E. ~ Mer r HR~/ED /.LI~. `~,~J ~~n c~ ~~' Lc~..~ 7.30 5. e~~: L ~ ~`~•.' c•.S, Scf _ \C~ ~~ /6. \ ~~ ~ ~ TJ \v_~' Q 8:00 ~o ~'~i` ~~~ 8:15 8. A. Economic Developmen~--t Report -written report by Koropc ak. - Review the draft copy of the October 4, 2005 Planning Commission Agenda for industrial related items. Discuss and vote on an IDC position or action if necessary. 5. Continued Public Hearing -Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordina~~ce for Open and Outdoor Storage. Applicant: City of Monticello 12. Public Hearing -Request to re-zone an industrial property from I-l A (Light Industrial) to I-2 (Heavy Indust 'al). Applicant: rty of M ticello ~ d~ ~©`~ Other Business. B. C. Adjournment. C `"1 ~' Chamber Updates -Chair Sue Struckness. Industrial & Business Development Banquet -Monday, Octoob`er 24,x,1 11:00 Industry Booth - 12:00 Buffet - 12:15 Speaker, $35. ~ ~ 0~ Next IDC meeting -Tuesday, November 1, 2005. ~~, ~-`" ~ ~: ~ ~ . MINUTES MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - 7:00 a.m. Meet at West County Road 39 & Chelsea Road/Dalton Avenue followed at Academy Room -Monticello Community Center MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Dan Olson, Vice Chair Paul Kleinwachter, Mary Barger, Bill Tapper, Dick Van Allen, Mike Benedetto, Lynne Dahl, and Tom Feaski. MEMBERS ABSENT: Tom Lindquist, Don Roberts, Barb Schwientek, Don Tomann, Kelli Huxford, and Sue Struckness. STAFF PRESENT: Ollie Koropchak. COUNCIL LIAISON PRESENT: Council Member Wayne Mayer. IDC MISSION STATEMENT: To maintain and increase the industrial tax base and to create jobs in the City of Monticello, Minnesota. Call to Order. (Please read the minutes and information prior to the meeting) Chair Dan Olson called the IDC meeting to order at 7:24 a.m. declaring a quorum. • 2. Vote to approve the Auk ust 2, 2005 IDC minutes. Mary Barger made a motion to approve the August 2, 2005, IDC minutes. Bill Tczppe~° seconded the motion and with no corrections or additions, the minutes were approved as written. Follow-up and discussion on the development of the Monticello Business Center (Otter Creek Crossing . A. Feedback of site visit. Members who visited the site area at Chelsea Road West and County Road 39 felt the infrastructure improvements under-way were both impressive and serves as a major linkage for the southwest/westerly corridor of the city. Koropchak indicated in her interview with the Times she mentioned for the newspaper to contact the Chair of the IDC and HRA. The WSB project manager informed the group that the infrastructure improvements are about two weeks ahead of schedule for completion. • Mayor's City Update: A. Proposed I-94 and County Road 18 Interchange Project. Construction has commenced at the intersection of County Road l 8 and 39 and extension of Meadow Oak Avenue to County Road 18, this in preparation of removal of the County Road 18 bridge this fall. Bids for the interchange should be let soon. 1. AVR relocation and construction progress. Koropchak noted a meeting between the Mayor, Council member Posusta, City Attorney, AVR representatives and AVR Attorney is scheduled for this Thursday morning. 2. Sanitary Sewer Trunk Line installation progress. It appears the installation of the sanitary sewer trunk line on the north side of 1-94 is complete but work continues on the south side. IDC Minutes - 09/06/2005 B. Jefferson at Monticello and Popular Hills residential developments. A few council members and planning commissioners along with the Planning staff went on a tour organized by the Heritage Developers (Jefferson's of Monticello). They visited housing developments in Chaska and Maple Grove which highlighted 36 foot lots with maintenance-free amenities. Council Member Mayer said he was not impressed with the 36 ft lots and felt they were shown the cream-of--the-crop. Additionally, he reported the Council denied the apartments within the proposed Popular Hills project being sensitive to what benefits the school district. C. Status of YMCA property. Mayer reported discussion are at astand-still. D. Fiber Option Task Force. Mayer reported the Council approved development of a request for proposal to find out the citys role. The current providers appear to be under built and have no plans to add to existing structure. E. Engineer and Building inspector hiring status. The engineer and building inspector have been hired and the engineer is expected to start September l 2. Asked of the Council's reaction to the IDC recommendation relative to who the engineer is accountable to? Wayne Mayer reported the engineer will report to the Deputy Administrator for now until review of the city administrative organizational structure is complete. F. Merger HRA/EDA/IDC. Koropchak reported a meeting with t11e HRA attorney and financial consultant, Wolfsteller, O'Neill, Koropchak and HRA Chair Lahr was held for the purpose of gathering information at the request of the Council and a consultant. The consultant recognized the number of commission meetings and suggested for efficiency perhaps merging some of the commissions. Discussions included the roles and powers of the HRA and EDA, options for merging, pros and cons of merging, and how appointment of commissioners might be handled. The IDC was discussed as to their role as an independent lobby group and the city providing staff and service. The attorney raised concerns about the city providing an independent organization with free service. His concern was the State Auditor. A couple of alternative options for the IDC: A branch of the Chamber or as an advisory committee to the HRA or EDA. The professional input of the attorney and consultant was that legally the HRA and EDA can be merged. Their personal input was the city of Monticello has a long tradition and is unique because of the number of willing educated volunteers, so why change it. The meeting ended with O'Neill to summarize the meeting and forward to the personnel committee. Reports: A. Economic Development Report. Accepted as written. 6. Review the draft cogy_of the September 6, 2005 Planning Commission Agenda for industrial related items. Discuss and vote on an IDC position or action if necessary 9. Consideration of a request for preliminary plat and conditional use permit for concept stage and development stage PUD. Applicant, Blue Chip Development. Mary Barger reported they plan to construct a 25,000 sq ft building to the rear of the lot located along Dundas Road and behind Vector Tool and B&B Metal Stamping. Currently they have two proposed tenants. 13. Continued Public Hearing -Amendment of Ordinance for Open and Outdoor Storage Applicant: City of Monticello. Bill Tapper said he was looking for support and distributed a memo of this thoughts. He felt there were two principle objectives for the outdoor storage ordinance amendment: l .Not unsightly. 2. Businesses need to do business. It needs to be neat and clean, needs space for big equipment and 2 IDC Minutes - 09/06/2005 barrier for recycled by-products, and front yard is for business activity. Tapper questioned: What is the problem and how do we solve it? is the purpose for enforcement and subject to interpretation? Members agreed the ordinance needs to be reasonable (simple) and needs to provide clarity. Members supported the memo written by Tapper and recommended a cover letter accompany the memo and be mailed to members of the Planning Commission, City Council, city staff and the consultant in advance of the upcoming meetings on outdoor storage. Wayne Mayer noted his frustration as a council member that adequate information is not always provided for making informed decisions. He suggested a list and phone number of the 1DC members also be attached allowing council and planning commission members to contact IDC members for more information. 7. Other Business. A. Chamber Updates - In the absence of the Chamber Chair, Tom Feaski reported the Buzz Anderson, MN Retailers Association, will be guest speaker at the Chamber luncheon, September 15. The Expo is now slated for February. Working with the office of Senator Coleman, the Industrial Business Luncheon Fund-raiser is planned for the end of October. The Chamber has requested a three to four week advanced notice. B. Next IDC meeting -Tuesday October 4, 2005. Adjournment. Bill Tapper made a motion to adjourn. Seconded by Dick Ilan Allen and with no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:45 a. m. ~1 C ~L.~`~.J Ollie Koropchal~, Recorder • ~~ ! ~~ ~~~~ `~ ~~ ~ ~ ~;~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~_ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ c~ f ~~ r~ ~.` ~~ k ~- ~ ,~ ~'~ ~°, v~ //~ r . ... y . ~.N' ~ , ~~0/ ~~ ~. --~-~~ ~ ~ ~,r.---- ~ ~- ~1 rr°f .~ rrr~~~ ~~ l~ ~'i~ ~~ ~ v ,'- ~~ ~ ~~ ~o~` ~ ~, ~~. ,. ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~'~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ .~ ~ L.... IDC Agenda - 10/04/05 5. Executive Director's Report. a) Landmark Square II - HRA Contract amended to read: As a condition of the Authority approving the provision of Available Tax Increment to the Developer to assist in defraying the Land Acquisition Costs, the three residential properties on the Development Property shall not be relocated to any site within the city. Parking requirements satisfied by "Proof of Parking" and additionally there was a miscalculation of parking stalls. b) Rocky Mtn Group LLC (Dahlheimer) -Due to an incorrect legal description on the annexation order and the re-plat, the property is treated as "torrens" land. This caused a delay in recording of the plat and the closing date. In order to allow the developer to begin construction prior to closing, a License Agreement was executed. I believe all documents are signed, plans approved, and fees collected for issuance of a building permit on September 27, 2005. Closing or conveyance of property is anticipated by at least October 14, 2005. c) Twin City Die Castings -TCDC /St. Cloud Technical College are applying to the Minnesota Job Skills Partnership for an approximate $250,000 Training Grant. The grant would be used to support advanced automated manufacturing training for the 260 Monticello and Minneapolis employees. The training would take place at the Monticello facility over an expanded time period. ADDITIONALLY - It is my understanding TCDC applied for a variance fora 5,000 sq. ft. metal accessory structure. After denial of the variance and a meeting with city staff, it was reported TCDC agreed to expand their existing 36,000 sq ft facility. At the Outdoor Storage meeting, a TCDC representative reported an expansion to the existing building was not economical and they may look to lease space in Buffalo. In speaking to the owner, Doug Harmon, thereafter, TCDC plans to and has approval to construct outdoor storage: concrete slab, fencing and landscaping. TCDC contributed $100 cash prize for the Rotary Golf Outing. d) Manufacturer of food bases, sauces, and seasonings -Paul Kleinwachter, John Simola, and Koropchak visited this company located in Dayton on September 21. The 1956 family-owned business is looking to construct a 20,000 sq ft facility on approximately 2-acres spring 2006. With no adverse impact to the Waste Water Treatment Plant, a proposal and cover letter was mailed to the company. Paul, thanks for your nice letter. Total of twenty full-time permanent jobs at an average wage-level of at least $20.70 ph without benefits. Sixteen jobs out of the MN facility. Received email and now have begun to work with their contractor. e) Attended the ribbon cutting for Pinnacle Financial, Thomas Circle, September 16. Dragon Fly Open House and Loch's Retirement Celebration on September 22. Electro Industries' Open House, September 28. f) UMC $290,000 Minnesota Investment Fund Loan final report can be submitted. g) Tapper's Holding Company -Expected to close on the GMEF Loan of $200,000 mid- October for the Emundson building expansion. h) Soon to close on a Transformation Home Loan. i) Fiber Optic Task Force will begin to develop a request for proposal (RFP) on September 29 C~ IDC Agenda - 10/04/05 and will continue meeting until completion of final draft for consideration by Council on November 14`''. j) Letter from Office of State Auditors regarding questions on the 2003/2004 TIF reports. Must respond by mid-October, most irrelevant questions. k) Survey by League of Minnesota Cities -Compiling data from communities who have used eminent domain for purpose other than public improvements. (HRA-O'Connor parcel in 2001). 1) Follow-ups - 200,000 sq ft manufacturer -United Properties (no response) Great River Energy Headquarter Building -Looking for 60 acres. Elk River offered 60 acres for $1 but not interested. New President wants Maple Grove area for image purpose. 30,000 sq ft machine shop (gave offer/not interested) I'm OK with this. 60,000 sq ft builder of dump bodies, grain bodies, and trunk hoists. Responded with first preliminary information and talked via phone. Needs outdoor storage. m) Blue Chip Development -Barger 25,000 sq ft expansion. • September 7, 2005 Board of Directors Minnesota Job Skills Partnership 1 S` National Bank Building 332 Minnesota Street, Suite E 200 St. Paul, MN 55101-1351 Dear Members of the Board, On behalf of the City of Monticello, I would like to request your full support for the St. Cloud Technical College/Twin City Die Castings Company grant application to support Advanced Automated Manufacturing training for the Monticello and Minneapolis employees. It is important to provide the technical and process improvement training needed by current and expected employees to enhance the company's ability to expand and compete in a worldwide business market. St. Cloud Technical College is well positioned to assist these efforts in helping to maintain Twin City Die Castings Company as a strong and viable Minnesota manufacture and employer. I urge your favorable consideration of this application. Please feel free to contact me at 763-271- 3208, if I can provide further information. Sincerely, CITY OF MONTICELLO -, ,. ~, , a -~ ~~ ~ ~ Ollie Koropchak Economic Development Director Mayor Clint Herbst File • Monticello City Hall, 505 Walnut Street, Suite 1, Monticello, MN 55362-8831 • (763) 295-2711 • Fax: (763) 295-4404 Office of Public Works, 909 Golf Course Rd., Monticello, MN 55362 • (763) 295-3170 • Fax: (763) 271-3272 MONTICELLO R ~ ~ ~R~ Ypy~~ 'L , t Ye THE LAND 5~'ECIAL15T5``' / July 29, 2005 Mr. Jeff O'Neill City of Monticello 505 Walnut Street Suite 1 Monticello, MN 55362-8831 RE: Metal Building Variance For: Twin City Die Casting, Inc. Lot 1, Block 1, Monticello Commerce Center Fourth Addition, Monticello, Minnesota Dear Jeff: On behalf of Monticello Industrial Park, Inc., we strongly oppose a variance that would allow the construction of a metal exterior building or addition on subject property. Not only would it violate the zoning provisions of I-1A, it would violate the character of the existing Twin City Die Casting building and the exceptional quality of the UMC building. Monticello Industrial Park, Inc. owns the vacant lot contiguous. to the west boundary of subject property. Any metal exterior building will impact on the salability of that property. In addition, there will be, in the near future, significant development across the street from subject property between Chelsea Road and I-94 that will be impacted also. Very truly yours, Charles C. Pfeffer, Jr. cc: Angela Schumann Shawn Weinand l'Je[/~r~ ('nr>i/x~n,v, ~~tc. 7200 Ner~~luck. Lane, b'itile lDI • i~lctpfe Grrwe, iLIIV SJ3~9-.i5~Y7 7(3.=12.5.030 • F;%1X 70.425.'823 • /~fc~/JercnCa~aul.cum • www.h/c:[Je~rcu.cnnr www.TlieLunclSj~ecialista~.rom ]SINESS 1OUBNAL I twincities.bizjournals.com September 16, 2005 Developers reveal drivers, • deterrents in city selection 8Y ELLEN P. 6ABLER STAfF WRITER Waiting for slow city approvals gives devel- opers fits. So do inconsistent regulations, stubborn city staffers and excessive fees, according to a survey completed recently by some of the Twin Cities' top real estate developers. The Minnesota chapter of the National Association of Industrial and Office Properties (NAIOP) this week released results of its first sur- vey of developers, asking them what they think about working with local municipalities. NAIOP Minnesota selected 24 of its 820 members to participate. The survey charted developers' general opinions, not their take on working with specific cities. Developers ranked the following factors in order of importance when deciding on which city to foots their efforts: 1. Cost of development 2. The city's attitudes toward developers and development 3. Business subsidies 4. Pre-construction scheduling and the pro- cessing time involved. Among development costs, developers are most irked by overly irrelevant local municipal fees, especially special charges not associated vvith their project such aspark-dedication fees. Developers said good relationships with city egahler@b¢joumalscom ~ (612) 286-2106 WHERE'S THE ACTION? ..........._ .... .......... ... . t5 r Where 24 NAIOP developers say 12 C 9i ~ i c 0 a N B 3 :n 3t to ,g they are most active raj t {within the past two years): ?ti rl, z~i 4as 4sl tt ill ;ti ~9 1 ' j ~ I ;j ..~; I"'1' : #~ l~} ~ y i tlg+, :cam;; , jff{ °. t t~ ~ ~~ 7 EACH a q B EACH 5 3 'EACH I ~ ' ? "Mapl `+ e Grove ~ St. Paul 'Blaine ; ~ St. Louis Park Minneapolis Blamnington PJoodhur9 Erlen Prairie Brooklyn Park Lino Lakes Eagan dllonticello Rogers Savage Roseville Shakopee staffers and a willingness to work together are helpfttl; one respondent noted that developers often choose "the path of least resistance." Developers said they favored cities that kept business subsidies in mind and offered speedy and fair navigation through planning phases. Larry Lee, community development direc- tor for Bloomington, said he has seen nation- alstudies such as this, bttt none done locally. Bloomington has "excellent turnaround" and good working relationships with develop- ers, Lee said, adding that the city can't make everyone happy all the time. "From time to time, we have to say'No,' or more likely, 'Can you modify your plan to do it this way?' That causes heartburn sometimes, but it's part of our job of representing public interest." Developers responding to the survey on average had more than 10 years of commer- cial-development experience. They work for firms that have been in business between 10 and 20 years and average $43 million in new development each year. Respondents develop a variety of project types: 88 percent industri- al, 76 percent office, 68 percent retail and 48 percent mixed-use. Where they plan to develop in the next two years: m c tv . ~ ~ i r C 3 t 0 tea Q ~ ~ l l l i 5 4 Y{ 3 2 B EACH EACH EACH Minneapolis 1' Blaine Brooklyn Park Bloomington Eden Prairie PPaple Grove Eagan Plymouth Monticello Rogers St. Paul Roseville Shakopee St. Michael Savage Woodhury ~l ~> , ~, ~~' u Rnurce~ 9005 Dwrelnner Survev, romoieted by the Minnesota chapter of PIAIOP; the complete report is available online at www.naiopmn.org. AGENDA G MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, OCTOBER 4th, 2005 6:00 P.M Commissioners: Dick Frie, Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart, William Spartz, and Sandy Suchy Council Liaison: Glen Posusta Staff: Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch, Steve Grittman - NAC, Angela Schumann 1. Call to order. 2. Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held Tuesday, September 6th, 2005. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. 4. Citizen comments. • 5. Continued Public Hearing-Consideration to amend the Monticello Zoning Ordinance ~'~ relating to Open and Outdoor Storage. Applicant: City of Monticello 6. Continued Public Hearing -Consideration of a request for amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance relating to the regulation of pylon signage. Applicant: City of Monticello Consideration to review for final approval the development stage PUD for Monticello Travel Center 2"d Addition. Applicant: IRET Properties 8. Public Hearing -Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a detached accessory structure in an R-1 Zoning District. Applicant: Jason VanderHeyden 9. Public Hearing -Consideration of a request for preliminary plat for a commercial subdivision and rezoning from P-S to B-3 for St. Henry's Catholic Church. Applicant: St. Henry's Catholic Church 10. Public Hearing -Consideration of a request to rezone from (PZM) Performance Zone Mixed to B-3 (Highway Business). Applicant: MMC Land Company, LLC • 1 1. Public Hearing -Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit for a detached accessory structure in an R-4 residential district. Applicant: Kjellberg's, Inc. 12. Public Hearing -Consideration of request to rezone an industrial property from I-1 A (Light Industrial) to I-2 (Heavy Industrial). ti~~ Applicant: City of Monticello 13. Consideration of scheduling additional Plam~ing Commission meetings relating to ordinance matters and long-range planning. 13. Adjourn. • Planning Commission Agenda - 10/04/05 • 5. Public Hearing: Consideration of a request for an amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance relating to Open and Outdoor Storage. Applicant: City of Monticello (NAC) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Attached to this memorandum are two alternative approaches to the Open and Outdoor Storage issue, which has been under study by the City and a group of interested property owners over the past several months. The first is a proposal generated by staff, based on the series of meetings held with property owners, and staff concerns related to enforceability. The second is a proposal generated by members of the IDC (h~dustrial Development Committee). It has been modified by staff to fit into a format similar to that of the original staff ordinance to provide an easier comparison. In essence, the IDC draft was put together based on concerns that the staff draft was overly restrictive of certain business activities, and unclear on certain requirements. The primary objections to the staff draft have related to screening from other users, the definition and measurement of screening, and requirements for waste-handling equipment (dLUnpsters) to be screened by an enclosure. Staff is concerned that the IDC draft creates a standard (neatness) that is not • enforceable, and would be abused by those who are the primary violators of the aesthetic purpose of outdoor storage regulation. Moreover, the IDC draft suggests that any height of storage is acceptable, provided a 6 foot high screen that "obscures" the view is in place. Staff is concerned that this clause would fail to address some of the past violations, and that "obscuring" view of the storage area does not achieve the purpose of screening as commonly envisioned. The two drafts are provided for contrast. It does not appear that the differences between the two are reconcilable -they rely on different approaches to regulation of outdoor storage. A third option, denial, is offered to the Planning Commission -that of leaving the language of the ordinance as it stands. The original conflict arose due to concerns that the current ordinance was unclear in its application to the storage of materials by Simonson Lumber in its side yard area adjacent to a street. This relatively unique situation has resulted in the material before you, but it may be that the proposed amendment attempts to fix a problem that is actually a rare occurrence. It is very important to obtain input from those directly affected by the ordinance. It is the view of staff that a strong effort has been made in that regard. Now it is up to the Planning Commission to combine all factors in evaluating options and work toward developing an ordinance accordingly. • Planning Commission Agenda - 10/04/05 ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS • Decision 1: Zoning Amendment regulating Open and Outdoor Storage 1. Motion to recommend approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment regulating Open and Outdoor Storage according to the staff recommendation. 2. Motion to recommend approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment regulating Open and Outdoor Storage according to the the IDC option. 3. Motion to table action on the Zoning Ordinance Amendment regulating Open. and Outdoor Storage. 4. Motion to recommend denial of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment regulating Open and Outdoor Storage, based on findings to be made by the Planning Commission. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the staff option, if any amendment is to be adopted. While this option may not address the issues in the manner preferred by the IDC, staff believes that it is more enforceable and understandable than the IDC option. Due to the lack • of frill consensus, staff believes that no amendment may be an acceptable option at this point. Staff felt it important for the Commission members to have the opportunity to address the options presented and review the outcomes from the meetings on this topic. SUPPORTING DATA A. Staff Ordinance Option B. IDC Ordinance Option -Grid C. IDC Recommendation Letter D. IDC Ordinance Recommendation s~ • CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 2005- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE SECTION 2-2 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATED TO OUT DOOR STORAGE WITHIN THE CITY OF MONTICELLO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 2-2 Definitions of Title 10 Zoning Ordinance-City of Monticello is hereby amended to include the following definition related to Outdoor Storage: Outdoor Storage: The keeping of materials or equipment on a parcel of land for the purpose of transporting, using or employing such materials or equipment at a future date at another location, either on- or off-site. The keeping of motorized vehicles that are not licensed for operation on the public roadways, or other equipment that is not capable of self-powered movement (such as trailers), shall be included in this definition. Screening: A structure or other object, consisting of either fencing, landscaping, buildings, berms, or other material, which constitutes a completely opaque wall between • materials or activities on private property and a viewer on adtacent property public or private. Gated areas for access and circulation shall not be included in the requirement for screening. Screening shall be measured from the property line at eve-level. For the purposes of this section chain link fence with slats of a natural or neutral color shall be defined as meeting the "completely opaque" requirement. Section 2. Section 3-11 B OUTDOOR STORAGE, shall hereby be inserted into the Zoning Ordinance as follows: [A] The following activities shall not be considered outdoor storage for the purposes of these regulations: a. Parking of passenger vehicles and light trucks, parked in compliance with the City of Monticello zoning regulations. b. Parking of company vehicles, including trucks, vans, and other similar vehicles, with the exception of semi-truck rigs which shall be subject to separate regulations. c. Semi-truck tractors and tractor-trailer rigs (not including detached • trailers), when such tractors and tractor-trailer rigs are parked in the rear yard. d. Semi-truck trailers located in designated loading docks, or otherwise in the active process of loading or unloading, for a period of not more than 72 hours. e. Trash handling equipment, provided such equipment is located within an enclosure in compliance with the City of Monticello zoning regulations. [B] The following table details the processing requirements within the I-1A, I- 1, 1-2 District: r1 LJ • DISTRICT I-1 A I-1 I-2 Processing CUP for accessory CUP for accessory Permitted as an Requirements use use accesso use Front Setback, and Rear fine of building Building line closest Building line closest Side Setback facing to the public street to the public street a Street on front or side on front or side Internal Side Equal to building Zero feet setback Zero feet setback property line requirement permitted in rear permitted in rear Setback and side yard and side yard behind front line of behind front line of rinci al buildin principal buildin Rear Setback Equal to district Zero feet setback Zero feet setback setback requirement permitted in rear permitted in rear and side yard and side yard behind front line of behind front ine_of principal building principa building Storage Area 20% of building floor 50% of lot area, No limitation as an Limitation area, maximum maximum accessor use Screening from 100% screen via 100% screen via 100% screen via Street and landscaping and /or landscaping and/or landscaping and/or Residential/ decorative fencing decorative fencing decorative fencing Commercial Uses required required required from residential or commercial property, but not streets where adioinina zoning in Industrial. Screening from 100% screen via No screening No screening Industrial Uses landscaping and required if abutting required if abutting decorative fencing I-1 or 1-2 building I-1 or 1-2 building required Occupation of Not permitted Permitted, with Permitted, with drains e and utilit si ned, recorded si ned, recorded • easements acknowledgement acknowledgement of owner's of owner's restoration restoration requirements requirements Section 3. Enactment. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage and publication. ADOPTED this day of 2005. CITY OF MONTICELLO By: ATTEST: By. Clint Herbst, Mayor Rick Wolfsteller, City Administrator • V • IDC Recommendation -Ordinance Form drafted by NAC I-2 Language interpreted from IDC Recommendation. I-lA and I-1 language provided by NAC for alternatives to original staff language. • • District I-1A I-1 I-2 Processing Conditional Varies Permitted Use Requirements Use Permit Front Setback, and Not Permitted Conditional Permitted, Side Setback facing Use Permit subject to use in Street normal course of business at least once per week Internal Side property CUP if CUP, or Permitted, line Setback adjoining other Permitted if subject to use in Industrial adjoining other normal course of Property Industrial business at least Pro ert once per year Rear Setback Permitted Permitted Permitted, subject to use in normal course of business at least once per ear Temporary Storage in Permitted Permitted .Permitted for Rear Yard periods of up to one month Area Limitation Rear Yard Only No limitation No limitation Screening from Street Full Screening Obscured, Screening Required Screening if in accomplished by Front Yard 6' tall vegetation to "obscure" view of sto ra e Screening from Full Screening Screening in Screening Residential/Commercial Required Front Yard, accomplished by Uses in Rear Yard "Obsured" 6" tall vegetation elsewhere to "obscure" view of sto ra e Screening from "Obscured" "Obscured" Rear yard adjacent Industrial screening 6 feet Uses in height, regardless of hei ht of stora e Occupation of Drainage Permitted Permitted Permitted and Utilit Easements _ _ _ __ The IDC made recommendations regarding Front and Rear Yard definitions. Planning . staff would not recommend these changes due to conflicts with other generally accepted zoning definitions. The IDC made recommendations regarding requirements for "neatly stored". Planning staff is concerned about this term from an enforcement standpoint. "Equipment": Any item used in the normal course of business without wheels, including waste handling equipment. "Obscure": Vegetation plantings which when mature, will grow to limbs just touching. Not "opaque". J~ MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE IVlonticello, Minnesota • "The purpose of the Industrial Development Committee is to operate as an independent lobbying organization structured to influence and assist industrial development in and f'or the CitS~ of Monticello. In the broadest context focus on overall industrial development and developers." MEMO TO: Mayor and Cit}~ Council Members Planninb Commissions City Staff and Consultants FROM: Monticello Industrial Development Committee (IDC) SUBJECT: Proposed amendment to the Monticello Zoninb Ordinance relatinb to Open and Outdoor Storage. ' DATE: September 9, ?005 • The purpose of this memo is to provide cit}~ council members, planning commissioners, and city staff/consultants with a recommendation for the proposed amendment to the Zoninb Ordinance relatinb to Open and Outdoor Storage. The IDC supports an approach to amend the ordinance so as to permit business to do its business while maintaining a neat and clean industrial area, and also makes clear how this is to be accomplished. The attached recommendation offers an alternate approach which we believe is a basic concept not a complete ordinance which accomplishes the above objectives. It is anticipated that the concept of difference industrial zones havinb different requirements would be retained with the attached being the base criteria for the 1-2 zone. The recommendation is beinb provided in advance of upcoming meetinbs to allov<~ council members, commissioners, and staff/consultants adequate time to contact IDC members for fu~lher discussion and to answer questions. ]t was brought to the attention of the IDC that elected officials and appointed commissioners may not always receive sufficient information necessary to make educated decisions. The IDC recognizes and thanks many business and bovernmental individuals for the numerous hours and effort already applied to the drafting of this proposed amendment Attached is the recommendation and a list of IDC members and phone numbers. We encourage you to contact us. • c: IDC Members Out Storage Thoughts Reason for ordinance: To prevent industrial properties from being unsightly. Proposal Out door storage is allowed in the back yard if the following conditions are met. Product and or vehicles that are being used in the normal course of business that is neatly stored. This is defined as items that are used or moved at lease once per year. This does not include the long term storage of equipment or vehicles which are not complete i.e. equipment and vehicles which are being salvaged for spare parts. In this case they may be stored outside for a maximum of one month. Materials and equipment should be stored on a hard surface or a mowed area but weeds higher than 6" must not be allowed to grow intermingled with the stored items. .Any product or vehicle can be stored if a 6 foot opaque barrier is erected to conceal the items. The height of the barrier is measured at the bamer. The barrier must completely surround the item. However, the items can be taller than 6 feet high. Out door storage allowed in the front yard. Equipment and vehicles used in the normal course of business. It ,would be expected that this equipment and vehicles would be in active use (used at least weekly for normal business activities. It is suggested that when heavy equipment and vehicles are normally in the front yard that planting be used to obscure this equipment for the public i roads. Business activities and equipment may be seen through drives, entrances, approaching at side angles, and side streets although it is suggested that these be obscured as much as possible. Definitions Front Face of Building: The building face closest to and rnnning substantially parallel to the street that defines the buildings address. Back Yard: the area behind the front face of the building. Front Yard: The area in front of the front face of the building. Obscure: Not opaque if plantings are used it should be expected that when fully grown~the Iimbs will just touch. Equipment: Any item that does not have wheels for the purpose of moving the equipment and is used in the normal course of business. This includes waste or recycling containers. Waste must be in containers and not on the ground around them Requirements for the industrial zone where back and side yards abut other zones . Plantings at least 6 feet tall planted along the adjoining separation Iine to obscure the industrial property. • ~ ~ ~ ~~> NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING Notice is hereby given that a public meeting will be held by the City of Monticello Planning Commission on October 4th, 2005 at 6:00 p.m., in the Monticello City Hall to consider the following matter: PUBLIC MEETING: Consideration of request to rezone an industrial property from I- lA (Light Industrial) to I-2 (Heavy Industrial). LOCATION: That portion of Outlot B, Otter Creek Crossings, City of Monticello, with final property lines to be determined. APPLICANT: City of Monticello r] L Fred Patch, Chief Zoning Official Written and oral testimony will be accepted on above subjects, and all persons desiring to be heard on referenced subjects will be heard at this meeting. Note: Decisions of the Planning Commission will be subject to the approval or denial of the City Council and will be considered on Monday, October 10th, 2005 at 7 p.m., at the Monticello City Hall. • SEP-13-2005 11 55 P.02i03 ,~~ ~~ / ~• `` `~ ~~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~`,`` j' _. ~ , ~`. ~ `~~ I \ `~ ~~ ~ I ~ ~ ,. ., ~. ~ ~ ~l ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~. I '~~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~. I a~~\ ~ ~~ I \ ~ I Z ~~ ~~ I „~~~ \ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~. ~~ ~~ ~ `` \ ' , , :.~. ~ .rte... ~ ~i•`,\~, ~ \` ~~ ~` ~ `\~ J - ` \ ` ~! `. ~ ~ ~ i 37 3 I ~ r i' ..~"" .' r " ~` ~ ~' ..._ r I i j ~~~ '®~ ~ ~ ~ I ; I Ir _ ;,I II - -~ i ~I f - ~ g'~ I ~ ff / ~~ I °' Irk. I ,` SOY ~ \\ ~ I &~ ` ~ ~~. ~ I `~~ -'Fig. ~. ~` $ ~~ c~ I \ l I \ -.. I ~~~I. ~~~~ 1 ~ . [; p Y ) f~U S L-e~C .~ ` I ~` ~ \~ I ~. I `~ I .~ ~ .~ ~ ` ~~ ``~ ~ `~ ~~ , J ~ l i r ~ -r '~ ' 1 i~, , , ~ ~; I ~; ~~ `~~~ ~ 1 ~` i ~ / ~ 1 1 i r e- _ ~. a •FZ ~ ~ ~.,,.Z.X-t...f CUrVG~T ~L~- ~ .~ I ~ f' f~`l~ . _ ... _. i ~~ SEP-13-2005 11 55 i i ; R r CJJ/ CJJ r f ~, '~~. ' `, ~f ~, ~.. ~~~~, ~~ ~~ r, ` ~°° A' ii~ ` ~ \~~ ~.~ + / by ~ `. ~ ~ \ `. .~ l `\`\` \ ~ '~e 1 \`~ ~ ` \~~ \ ~\ `~~ ~ ~`~ b ~ /~ ~~r I I '' fJ l' ~" ~' $ l ~~ ~ ` ~. I' / ,.. l ~ l ~~/~ ~ ~e'~iy~i l ~. r r l . ' ~ •~_______ ~- ';' ~,, . ~,I: ~ . ~I .,\ ~ i ~ ' ~ '~. ,` ~ ~ ~. ~y~tcH. ~ L n'"` .~,`` ~ - \ `~ ~ .. ~.~ I 'I,,, ,., l~ ..'~. _ ~ ~~_ ~~ Pn~,r.~ ,, ~~- (~, p y 2. l U SL-cr+(~ N 'I 6D k 2i v s 1..~ ~o~,t eP~~T 0~-1"~ o-~ ~ -~ ~ \` ~~ ~ ~ .~ `~Z ~ ` \ ~ ~~.~ \~ ~ l ~\ ~~` ` `: 1\ 1~ r' alb .. I oo / i )~ ~/ r I / '~~ /i 1 l~ 1 i __ _ __ TOTAL P.03 Planning Commission Agenda - 10/04/05 • 12. Public Hearin: Consideration of a request to rezone an industrial property from I-lA (Li6ht Industrial) to I-2 (Heavy Industrial). Applicant: City of Monticello. (NAC) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND The City is considering the rezoning of a portion of the Otter Creek business park from the current I-lA designation to I-2, Heavy Industrial. The purpose of the rezoning is to accommodate the potential relocation of the AVR Ready Mix facility, which is being acquired as a part of the Highway 18/Interstate 94 interchange project. The Otter Creek business park was platted and zoned by the City with the intent of ensuring a high quality development pattern. The City included a series of covenants relating to the use of the property to further require a higher set of building and site development standards throughout the park. It was acknowledged when the park was developed that the quality of development on any one parcel could affect the likelihood of maintaining quality on other lots. As a result, rezoning to I-2 -which potentially reduces the development standards on the subject property -raises the concern that the purpose of the park would be eroded. The rezoning would allow land uses on the property that were not anticipated when the area was platted, including the ready-mix facility and other heavy industrial uses. • In addition to site development concerns, the location of a ready-mix facility will raise the issue of concrete mixer trucks using the roadways in the area. As such, there are off-site impacts that could result from the rezoning. Finally, the combination of the I-2 zoning and the covenants create an unusual mixture of site development requirements. The City is currently studying outdoor storage allowances with the expectation that regulation of outdoor storage in the I-2 areas might be relaxed. However, the covenants applying to the Otter Creek property prohibit outdoor storage. A rezoning does not negate the impact of the private covenants on the future use of the property. It will be important to make sure that a future user of the parcel is prepared to observe both the zoning requirements and the covenants prior to establishing a use on the subject property. The site is also adjacent to the YMCA land and. to land designated in the long range land use plan as R-lA residential development. Although there is a 300' powerline corridor and a grade difference as a buffer, there is concern that. development of the Ready mix or other I-2 use may be at cross-purposes with the goals of development housing and preservation of a natural amenity. Planning Commission Agenda - 10/04/05 • The zoning ordinance identifies a series of conditions that are to be considered when a rezoning request is made. These are as follows: 1. Relationship to municipal comprehensive plan. 2. The geographical area involved. 3. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. 4. The character of the surrounding area. 5. The demonstrated need for such use. The proposed location is guided for industrial use in the Comprehensive Plan. With regard to Items 3 and 4, the use could have the potential to depreciate the area. It would be necessary to strictly enforce the covenants and other zoning standards to ensure that a concrete plant does not raise property value issues. With regard to Item 5, the need is not questioned. Due to the amount of construction in the area, including road and building construction, concrete is a necessary building material. The other aspect of this issue is the need to identify a relocation. site for the AVR plant, given the eminent domain action forcing the plant to move from its current site. In summary, it would appear that the tests for rezoning are met, so long as the • performance standards are strictly enforced on the site. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Decision 1: Rezoning from I-lA to I-2 Motion to recommend approval of the rezoning, based on a finding that the request meets the specific tests for rezoning listed in the zoning ordinance, and that the zoning regulations and private covenants will ensure that the future land use of the site does not depreciate property values in the area. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the rezoning, based on a finding that the potential uses in the I-2 District, and the specific nature of the use of the property for a concrete ready-mix plant (including dust, truck traffic, noise, material storage, and dumping of excess concrete, will cause a depreciation in the value of surrounding development parcels. STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is staff s belief that Commission should only recommend approval of the rezoning with the City's active enforcement of the private covenants (currently in place on Plamling Commission Agenda - 10/04/05 only 35 acres of the business park, but intended to eventually apply to the entire park) . and other zoning regulations in order to ensure protection of surrounding property values. The nature of many of the I-2 District. uses, including concrete ready mix facility, demonstrate the potential for a negative impact on the surrounding land, and the City's effort to market the business park to higher end users as envisioned when the park was established. Additionally, the Commission should consider the potential land use impacts in terms of surrounding uses. As the owner/seller of the property, the City may wish to consider additional restrictions to the use of the property that would help to maintain the goals of the City in platting the business park. SUPPORTING DATA A. Site Location Map/Long Range Land Use Map B. I-lA Zoning District Standards C. I-2 Zoning District Standards D. Otter Creek Business Campus Covenants • • ! 2I~ ~ s~~~,~ ': `.~ . ~ ,.~ . .~.:_~; ~4_. __.w . ,,. . ,__x:, - ~: _:_ ~6 ~' .... .. ,. __ .. i. ~~ ~ ,~ ~. . ~.: ~.~ ~ n -y~. r } ~.._~ t ~~I J,?r' ;.r ~ .._.. r { ~~ lryw e~JpYMEN't fiuaurl~rM.ertt ~X(F9r1E1l4~fi r~itr ~~~ C rrw ''~ 4srr~t'p w ~wu d±~w l f 4+" , 1 f. t erl~stlyim ;irn~d~ It~Xar~ hsi ~ Gat,+r~x~-cot Ir~wmt~a Cx~*~ .':ip+stt~t~ -Anh 1"#pr~c L'aP4: ~i ~u~~ ~~rt:d++ i~~e Q6,~etctYue~: +~Nc ;drax s ~(i7al`7~ ~ ~Ir1~' ~iroro~fifrl~ i11~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~I}'p4 ~ tl~l! A'TJSI~I~ ~'>~'1HN" ~A' '' tae! B~1Ci1~711!E~t JI'ITI~IY~IN7'i~/~ ~IT:1f'« 1~>, ~iNJkl~i., t1p +psl"lV~~i~ ~!C~, ~~, ~ ~d~1°t, CHAPTER I ~A ~ 2~ "I-1:1" LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT • SECTION: 1 ~A- l : Purpose 1 ~A-?: Permitted Uses 1 ~A-~: Permitted Accessory Uses 1.5A-4: Conditirnial t Jses 15A-5: "I-lA" Design and Site Plan Standards 15A-1: PURPOSE: The purpose of the I-IA, Light Industrial District is to provide for the establishment of limited light industrial business offices, limited Lght manufacturing, wholesale showrooms and related uses in an environment which provides a high level of amenities, including landscaping, preservation of natural features, architectural controls, and other features. (#298, 10/13/97) 1 ~A-?: PL;RMI"1""1'EU USES: "I'he following are permitted uses in a I-lA District: (#?98. 10/13/97) [A) Radio and television (B) Research laboratories (C] Trade school . [D) Machine shops [E] Paint mixing [F) Bus terminals and maintenance garage (V] Warehouses [F1] Laboratories [1] Essential Services (.-) Governmental and public utility buildings [K) Manufacturing, compounding, assembly. or treatment of articles or merchandise [L) Manufacture of musical instruments, novelties, and molded rubber products [M) Manufacture or assembly of electrical appliances, instruments, and devices [N) Manufacture of pottery or other similar ceramic products using only previousl y pulverized clay and kihis fired only by electricity or natural ~7as [OJ Manufacture and repair of electrical signs, advertising structure, light sheet metal products. inciuciing heatin`T and ventilation equipment [P] Blacksmith. welding, or other metal shop [Q) Laundries, carpet, and rug cleaning [R] Bottling establishments [S] Building material sales and stora~~e [T) Broadcasting antennae, television, and radio [U) Camera and photographic supplies manufacturing • [V] Cartage and ~~press facilities ~40NTICELI.O ZONING ORDINANCE 1JA/1 [ W] Stationery, bookbinding, and other types of manufacturing of paper and related products but not processing of raw materials for paper production (X] Dry cleaning establishments and laundries • [Y] Electric Ii~~ht or power generating stations. electrical and electronic products manufacture, electrical service shops [7] Engraving, printing. and publishing [AA] .Iewelry manufacturing [BB] Medical, dental, and optical laboratories [CC] Storage or vvarehousiny~ [DD] Wholesale business and office establishments [EE] Commercial/professional offices [FF] Wholesale showrooms [GG] Conference centers [HH] Commercial printing establishments l~A-3: PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES: The following are permitted accessory uses in a " I-IA" District: (#?9i;, 10/13/97) [A] Commercial or business buildings and strictures for a use accessory to the principal use but such use shall not exceed thirty (3U) percent of-the gross floor space oFthe principal use: 1. -I-he parl:in~~ requirements of Chapter 3, Section ~, are complied with in lull. ?. '1•he oft=street loadin`` requirements of Chapter 3- Section (. are complied with in Full. 1 SA-4: CONDITIONAL USES: The follovvin`~ are conditional uses in a "I-I A" District: (Requires a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated by Chapter ?2 of this ordinance.) (#?9S. 10/13/97) [A] Open and outdoor stora~`e as an accessory use provided that: The area is fenced and screened from view of neighboring residential uses or, if abutting a residential district. in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [GJ. of this ordinance. 2. Stora~,~e is screened from view from the public right-of-way in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [G]. of this ordinance. 3. Storage area is ~~rassed or surfaced to control dust. ~. All Iightin~~ shall be hooded and so directed that the light source shall not • he visible from the public right-oF-way or ti•om nei~`hborin~~ residences an shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section ? [H]. of this ordinance. lv10NTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 1 ~A/2 ~. "I•he provisions o(•Chapter 2? of this ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. • [B) Industrial planned unit development as re~~ulated by Chapter 20 of this ordinance. [C~ Indoor limited retail sales accessory to office/manufacturing uses provided that: Location: (a) All sales are conducted in a clearly defined area of the principal building reserved exclusively for retail sales. Said sales area must be physically segregated from other principal activities in the buildill<~. (b) The retail sales area must be located on the ground floor of the principal building. 2. Sales Area. The retail sales activity shall not occupy more than fifteen (1 ~ j percent of the gross floor area of the building. ~. Access. The building ~\here such use is located is one havin~~ direct access to a collector or arterial level street without the necessity of usin~~ residential streets. • 4. Hours. Hours of operation are limited to 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. The provisions of this section are considered and satisfactorily met. f>f~-~: "1-lA" UESIC;N o\NU Sl"I~L PLAN S'fANDARUS: The following minul7um requirements shall he obscrvc:d in the "1-1 A" District subject to additional requirements, exceptions. and modifications set forth in this chapter: (#?98, ] 0/13/97) [A] Lot Coverage. There shall be no minimum or maximum lot covera`7e requirements in this district. (#?98, 10/13/97) [B] Building Type and Construction and Roof Slope Any exposed metal or fiberglass finish on all buildings shall be limited to no more than fifty (~0) percent of any one wall if it is coordinated into the architectural desi~_n. Anv metal finish utilized in the buildin~T shall be alUllllllllnl of t\\~e11t\-Slx (~6) gain>e steel, the roof slope shall he limited to a maximum of one (1) in twelve (12) slope. <v10NTICELLO ZONING ORDIN.-\NCE 1 ~A/3 • 2. In the "I-lA" District. all buildings constructed of curtain wall panels of finished steel. aluminum. or fiberglass shall be required to be faced with brick. wood, stone, architectural concrete case in place or pre:-case panels on all wall surfaces. (#298. 10/13/97) [C] Parkin~~. Detailed parkin~~ plans in compliance with Chapter 3. Section ~. shall be submitted for City review and approved before a building permit may be obtained. [D] Loading. A detailed off-street loadin~7 plan. including berths. area. and access shall be submitted to the City in conformance with the provisions of Chapter 3, Section 6, for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. [E] Landscaping. A detailed landscaping plan in conformance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [G], shall be submitted to the Council and approved before a building permit may be obtained. In addition to the requirements of Chapter 3, Section 2 [G], all parcels developed along the boundary between the I-lA zone and a residential zone shall include planting of evergreens as a screen between I-l A and R-l uses. The evergreens planted shall he planted every 1 ~ feet along the property boundary. (#298. 10/13/97] ] }~~ L)sablc Upon Space. Every effort shall he made to preserve natural ponding areas and features of the land to create passive open space. • <i ~ Si~.~na~~c. A comprehensi~~e sign plan must be submitted in conformance ~~ ith Chapter ;. Section 9. Lot Requircm~nts: Lot Area - 30.000 sq ft Lot Width - 100 feet Setbacks: Front Yard - 50 feet Side Ward - 30 feet Rear Yard - 40 feet (#221, 2/24/92) n hION'1'1CELL0 %ONING ORDIN.~NCE 1 ~A/4 IZG CHAPTER 16 "I-2" HLAVY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT • SEC~fIUN: 16-1: Purpose 16-2: Permitted Uses 16- ~: Permitted .Accessar~~ i ises 16-4: Conditional Uses 16-5: Interim Uses 16-1: PURPOSE: The purpose of the "I-2," heavy industrial, district is to provide for the establishment of heavy industrial and manufacturing development and use which because of the nature of the product or character of activity requires isolation from residential or commercial use. 16-2: PERMITTED USES: The following are permitted uses in an "I-2" district: [A] Any use permitted in the "I-1," light industrial, district. [B] The manufacturin~~. compounding, assembly, packaging. treatment, or storage of products or materials including: Breweries. cement. stone cuttinu. brick. <~lass. batteries (wet cell), ceramic procucts, mill worl:in~" metal polishing and plattin~T. . paint (pigment ml~~.), vinegar works. rubber products. plastics. meat packing. flour. feed gain milling„ milling, coal or tar asphalt distillation. rendering ~-works. distillation of bones. sawmill. lime, gypsum, plaster of paris. glue. size, cloth. and similar uses. [C] Automobile assembly and major repair. [D] Creamery and bottling plant. [E] Adult Use/Principal. (#217, 1/13/9?) [F] Foundry. 16-3: ACCESSORY USES: [A] Permitted Accessory Uses: The following are permitted accessory uses in an "I-2" district: 1. Al] permitted accessory uses allowed in an I-] (light Industrial) district. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 16/1 [B] Interim Accessory Uses: The following are interim accessorv uses in an I-2 district: - l. One temporary structure as an interim accessory use. subject to the following conditions: • (a) The interim accessory structure is not to exceed 700 sq ft. (b) The property owner(s) sign a development a`7reement with the City crnitrollin~~ site development and use. includin` a date upon which the interim use is to terminate. ' (c) The termination date is established at a point not longer than two (2) years following City Council approval. (d) The property owner supply adequate security to ensure removal of the interim structure and use upon reaching the termination date. (e) All other standards of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance are met. (t) Any Interim Accessory Use or Structure approved tinder this section will not be considered to constitute an expansion of apre- existin`.;legal non-conforming use where applicable. (#?41, ]0/1 1/93} 16-4: CONDITIONAL USES: The following are conditional uses in an "1-2" district: (Requirf a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated by Chapter ~~ Ot thls O1'd11la1lCel. -- [A) All conditional uses allo~~~ed in an "I-1," li~~ht industrial, district. [B] The foll-owing uses provided they meet all requirements of Chapter 3, Section 2, of this ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. 1. Auto wrecking, junk yard, used auto parts (open storage). and similar uses. ?. Incineration or reduction or waste material other than customarily incidental to a principal use. ~. Poison, fertilizer, fuel briquettes. 4. KihZS or other heat processes tired by means other than electricity. ~. Creosote plant. • 6. Acid manufacture. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDIN.-~NC'E 16/~ 7. Storage, utilization, or manufacture of materials or products which could decompose by detonation. 8. Refuse and garbage disposal. 9. Commercial stock ards and slau~hterin~ of animals. Y 10. Crude oil, ~~asoline, or other liquid storage tanks. 16-5: INTERIM USES: The following are interim uses in an "I-?" District (requires an interim .use permit based on the procedures set forth in and regulated by Chapter 22 of this ordinance): [A] Outdoor storage of t~•ucks and trucking equipment as an accessory use, provided that: 1. A specified termination date is documented. 2. The applicable requirements of Chapter 3, Section ?. General Building and Performance Requirements, are met. 3. The permit prohibits the parking of automobiles. ~l. The permit specifies a y`ravel surface. suitable for the parking of trucks. • ~. "I'he permit specifies that the intensity of visual screenin~~ shall be related to the location and nature of the stora<~e and the duration of the interim use. 6. The permit specifics that appropriate setback of necessary fencing and/or setbacl: of storage shall be related to the location and nature of the storage and the duration of the interim use. (#268, x/8/95) NIONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 16/3 • HRA Agenda - 10/OS/OS 5. Consideration of notice update, and discussion relative to request to re-zone a portion of Otter Creek Crossing from I-IA~Light Industrial) to I-2 (Heavy Industrial) A. Reference and background: The Chief Zoning Official has requested a public hearing for consideration to re-zone an industrial property from I-1 A (Light Industrial) to I-2 (Heavy Industry). The location under consideration is a portion of Outlot B, Otter Creek Crossing, City of Monticello, with final property lines to be determined. The Planning Commission will hold the public hearing on Tuesday, October 4, 2005, 6:00 p.m. and the City Council will consider the item on Monday, October 10, 2005, 7:00 p.m. Attached is the public hearing notice, map, and a copy of Chapter 16, "I-2" Heavy Industrial District, Monticello Zoning Ordinance, stating its purpose. Also attached is a Monticello Long Range Land Use Map noting the R1 and R1-A Land Use directly to the south and southwest, the Open Space (YMCA) Land Use directly to the west of the proposed re-zone, and the future boundary lines of the City of Monticello. The Council did authorize the City Attorney to offer a site within the 120-acre Otter Creek Crossing property under Contract for Deed as part of the AVR eminent domain package. There has been no response from AVR of interest in the Otter Creek site. The suggested approximate 12-acre parcel is located in the southwest corner of the 120-acre site. Here are some planning questions for the Planning Commission to answer: Is the long-range planning for the City of Monticello, progressive or regressive planning? 2. Has the City of Monticello not learned that a Heavy Industrial Zone abutting aSingle- Family Residential Zone is non-compatible, non-productive and poor planning? 3. Does the City of Monticello base planning decisions on reactions to immediate situation (short-term planning) or actions of economic benefit (long-term planning)? THE HRA CONTRIBUTED ONE-HALF OF THE DOLLARS FOR THE ACQUIRED 35- ACRES, RECORDED COVENANTS, ESTABLISHED A CRITERIA FOR JOB/WAGE- LEVELS AND NUMBER OF ACRES, AND HAS AN OVERALL INTEREST IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE BUSINESS CENTER; therefore, the HRA may have an interest in the proposed re-zone to I-2 (Heavy Industrial) at the Planning Commission public hearing, Tuesday, October 4, 2005, 6:00 p.m. HRA Agenda - 10/OS/OS See attached estimated economic impact. Update and discussion at the HRA meeting. C] • ECONOMIC IMPACT OF RE-ZONED 12 ACRE SITE Assumptions from meeting of December 2 2004 Desire twelve acres $2.5-$3. million investment 20 jobs (5 in office and 15 drivers)at $43 p/h with benefits. 150 trunks daily (cement,belli, etc.) 6 days a week, 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., sometimes longer. 3 to 4 silos, approximate 80 ft high. Proposed Project Preferred Measures 20 jobs 96 jobs required Wages $30 p/h w/o benefits $16. ph w/o benefits minimum average Value = 20 x 2080 x $30 = $1,248,000 annually Value = 96 x 2080 x $16 = $3,194,880 annually Annual loss in wages = $1,946,880 wilding size ? = 12 acres Value of investment $3 mill ion Estimated assessed market value, $1,500,000 Estimated Local Tax = $32,970* Estimated State Tax = $14,953 Estimated Market Tax = $ 816 TOTAL ANNUAL TAX= $48,739 130,680 sq ft building minimum - 12 acres Assessed market value of building, $6,534,000 Estimated Local Tax = $158,658* Estimated State Tax = $ 66,294 Estimated Market Tax = $ 3,554 TOTAL ANNUAL TAX= $228,506 Annual loss in - 000 x nnual esti sin local taxes = $125,688 Current Site Taxes - 21.8344 acres Land value - $469,100 Building value - $161,900 Total Local Tax = $15,844* Cost To Acquire City Property Land @ $2.65 per square foot = $1,385,208 ~ncludes trunk fees @ 2004 fee of $11,331 per acre = $135,972 IMPACT ON 12-ACRES OF RE-ZONE TO I-2 (Heavy Industrial) Annual loss in wages - $1,946,880 x 15 years = $29,203,200 Annual loss in local taxes - $125,688 x 15 years = $1,885,020 Value of improved land and trunk fees, 12 acres - $1,385,208 TIF District No. 1-34 to reduce high cost to acquire - $5,394,581 over 15 years. Not to mention impact to surrounding area. U ~ ~. z ~,; ,. m ~ 3'~. ,~, ~;1J~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~.'- ~ ~_. ~ ~~_ #:' ~'` ~~'' '~ .nf ~_.% tia ~ jl f ~~ I ~ ~/ ~~ . I~ ~ ~.,~Le.s ., ~~ ~~'. ~ y~ ~„°~ r ~~ r d i ~~._ ~a . ~;. }~ ~ y - ~' k ..~,r? ..,g~.._. _} ~ ~,: 1~ ~ ~ ,~ ~- x 1 ~ Hr~t, j. ,~ . ~+s 1~ w~ Jt ~ _. t ~W ~~ !. ~f ~' ~; ~ _, w~ ~,~~- ~>° .r t r --:d~ R. c ~~ ~, a1-'i v y,~, ~'. i C!~ ~ y ~'M~~ yc'~`~y ~Fd,~2s` ~r'~"i "-_~F' ~ ~`, 1*v~ / J ~~ ~' ~ ~ ~ 4 ,~ i X +iR w ~7 r- :',r ~*.~ ~k~ ~*~ ~'~li ~7r rt~ }~ 3'; ~ :Z~ `~ .'..+~{ r { ~~ti~ ,"G; ~ 's ,;,~ 'S r~L 'A l i~ t ",r rX u s.. ~ ... v ,~ ~~ 5 ff~,~ 1 ~ Y ` 3 J ~ '-r7 ~. y a _ ~ ~.- :~ r r 2 "~„ 4~ c. ~;' ....ww~ ,...,~a.,r~ :a~.w~+~..~; w+..,..-dw-~«r.....r ~i . w..«K. ~.a, Y Y .` «^ r J .. ' C1T f, `' ~+Y ~ ~ ~ '~j:: D+N ~'~' ~g ~ uo ~ 9 it -~ a~ ~ ~; ~~ a '.111. Y *aYf ~;~, Q ~_ _.: Z U ~~ -t Qi ~~Y ~ V VV ••