Planning Commission Agenda 03-02-2010
AGENDA
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, March 2nd, 2010
6:00 PM
Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
Commissioners: Rod Dragsten, Charlotte Gabler, Lloyd Hilgart, William Spartz,
and Barry Voight
Council Liaison: Susie Wojchouski
Staff: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman – NAC
1. Call to order.
2. Consideration to approve the Planning Commission minutes of January 5th and February 3rd
2010.
3. Citizen Comments.
4. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
5. Public Hearing - Consideration to recommend adoption of the 2010 City of Monticello
Zoning Map.
6. Consideration to review of a Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Sales as related to an
Outdoor Volleyball Facility at River City Extreme.
7. Community Development Director’s Report.
8. Adjourn.
Planning Commission Agenda- 03/02/2010
1
5. Public Hearing - Consideration to recommend adoption of the 2010 City of Monticello
Zoning Map. (AS)
BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission is asked to recommend adoption of the proposed 2010 City of
Monticello Zoning Map.
The City Attorney has recommended that the City adopt an official zoning map each
year.
The draft attached as supporting data has been reviewed by the Community Development
Coordinator, City Administrator, and Consulting City Planner for accuracy.
Since the Planning Commission’s initial review of the map in January, staff has noted
one required revision based on annexation records. The Schluender property, located on
the west side of the City, adjacent to the Groveland neighborhood, was annexed to the
City in 2006. The annexation was permitted based on a preliminary plat approval for
Poplar Hill.
The Poplar Hill preliminary plat approval has since lapsed, but the annexation is a
permanent action, unless the Township requests that the property be moved back within
the Township boundary. The Township has not made that request for this property, or
any other undeveloped properties at this time. Upon annexation, the Schluender property
is automatically zoned A-O. Until such time that another plat request is made concurrent
with a rezoning request, the property will remain A-O and is subject to current A-O
regulations. The zoning map included for adoption now includes the Schluender
property.
With this change, staff believe the map presented is an accurate reflection of all zoning
action.
Please note that some minor changes will be made to the base map to show proper road
configurations that are shown incorrectly on this map.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Motion to recommend adoption of the 2010 City of Monticello Zoning Map.
2. Motion to recommend tabling of action on the 2010 City of Monticello Zoning
Map for further study.
3. Motion of other.
Planning Commission Agenda- 03/02/2010
2
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the City of Monticello Zoning Map as proposed, noting
that minor changes will be made to the underlying base map. This draft represents an
accurate picture of Monticello’s zoning based on a review of all available records,
SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A: Draft 2010 City of Monticello Zoning Map
R1
I2
R1
B3
R1
I2
R1
AO
R2
CCD
B4
I1
I1-A
R2
R2
PZ-M
R1
R1
B4
B4
R1
R1
B4
R1
R2
R1
R1
R4
B3
B2
PZ-M
R-1A
R1-A
I1-A
I1
R3
R2
R-2A
R3
PZ-M
R2
PS
R2
R2A
AO
R2
R2
AO
B3
I1
R3
R-PUD
PZ-M
R1
PZ-M
PS
PZ-M
PZ-M
R2
R1
PZ-M
B3
B1
B2
B4
R-PUD
PS
PS
R-2
R2
B3
R1
R1 R1
I1-A
I-2
R4
AO
R1
B4
B4
B4
R1
B4
R1A
R4
AO
R1A
I2
B4
AO
90 th S t SE
Fe
nn
i
ng
A
v
e
N
E
M
i
s
s
i
s
s
ip
pi
R
iv
er
M i s s i s s i p p i R i v e r
Otter
C
r
e
e
k
First
Lake
Mud
Lake
R1
AO
01,2002,400600
Feet
Legend
Lakes
CityBoundary
Parcels
Zoning Districts
Agriculture - Open Space
Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential - A
Single Family and 2 Family Residential
Single Family and 2 Family Residential - A
Medium Density Residential
Mobile Home Park
Residential Planned Unit Development
Performance Zone - Residential
Performance Zone - Mixed
Neighborhood Business
Limited Business
Highway Business
Regional Business
Central Community District
Light Industrial - A
Light Industrial
Heavy Industrial
Public - Semi-Public
PUD
AO
R1
R1-A
R2
R2-A
R3
R4
PZ-R
PZ-M
B1
B2
B3
B4
CCD
I1-A
I1
I2
PS
PUD
Planning Commission Agenda- 03/10/2009
5. Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow outdoor sales and
service at River City Extreme for an outdoor volleyball and games area, zoned B-4,
Regional Business. Applicant: River City Extreme. (NAC)
REFERENCE & BACKGROUND
In May, 2006, River City Extreme submitted a request for Conditional Use Permit
for Outdoor Sales and Service, which came before the Planning Commission and
City Council in largely the same layout as now proposed. Several neighbors were in
attendance to voice concerns over current operations, and the impacts that the
proposed outdoor volleyball activity would have on their neighborhood. Among the
issues raised by the neighborhood were:
Noise (loud voices, profanity, car doors slamming, etc.) from patrons in the
parking lot at closing time.
Noise (breaking glass, metallic clanging, etc.) from refuse hauling in early
morning hours.
Traffic (including cut-through traffic exiting the facility, drag racing, etc.)
generated by the bowling center and related facilities.
Pedestrian traffic cutting through neighboring residential property.
The neighbors suggested that these issues would be intensified with the addition of
outdoor volleyball, and including new concerns that would be generated by the
volleyball use itself:
Whistles and cheering generated by officials and crowds in the volleyball
area (the applicant indicated that they would not be having organized
leagues, and as such, would not expect whistles).
Additional noise from outdoor alcoholic beverage consumption in the
volleyball area.
Potential for patrons to use exit gates and depart from the volleyball area
with alcoholic beverages and consume them in the parking lot.
Lighting impacts from the volleyball use, which are not currently an issue.
Proposed hours of operation (to 11:00 p.m.), suggesting that 9:00 would be
better if the use were to be allowed at all (the applicant indicated that he
would be comfortable with a 9:00 or 9:30 closing time.
The Planning Commission discussed the options for limiting hours and requiring
screening nets as conditions that would be necessary to mitigate the potential
negatives created by the outdoor use of the site. In the end, the Planning
Commission voted 3-2 to recommend denial of the CUP, based on findings that the
outdoor use was not compatible with the neighboring residential area due to the
probability that additional noise, lights, traffic and other negative impacts of the use
would be added to the current problems encountered by the residents. Those voting
to consider approval of the permit felt that a trial period would be justified to test
whether the concerns would be realized.
The City Council denied the request 3-2, based on these same concerns. As with the
Planning Commission Agenda- 03/10/2009
Planning Commission, those voting for approval favored the business use of the
property and believed that the conditions would control negative impacts.
River City Extreme is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit for outdoor sales
and service to allow the construction of an outdoor volleyball court on their site within
the Jefferson Commons subdivision. A 70,120 square foot bowling alley and banquet
facility was previously approved for the site. A variety of complimentary uses were also
proposed within the principal structure, including a pro shop, arcade, bar, full kitchen,
office and banquet hall. The site is zoned B-4, Regional Business. The construction of
the building was modified to a phased plan, with the construction of the banquet center to
be part of phase II.
As summarized above, the volleyball and games area was previously requested during the
spring of 2008. The Planning Commission found at that time that there were several
concerns over lighting, noise, and other impacts on the adjoining neighborhood. Many of
the concerns related to existing issues, and the addition of the outdoor facility would
make these concerns worse for the neighboring residential area. The City Council denied
the request upon noting that once granted, the Conditional Use Permit would be a
permanent condition of the site unless terms were violated, leading to a revocation.
The applicant is once again proposing the construction of an outdoor volleyball court in
the southwest corner of the building, where the future banquet space is proposed. The
volleyball court would remain in this area until such time as construction begins on phase
II of the building. The proposed area will contain two volleyball courts in a space 7,315
square feet in area. The courts are designed to have four feet in between and are
surrounded by a grass perimeter.
In the previous application, the applicant had also mentioned an additional area within the
fenced portion that would be available for various games on the existing lawn grass. The
applicant’s current application does not include this use, but this matter should be
clarified during the hearing.
ANALYSIS
Conditional Use Permit. Open or outdoor service is a permitted Conditional Use in the
B-4 District, if the use is connected with the principal use and is limited to thirty percent
(30%) of the gross floor area of the principal use. The proposed courts will comprise an
area equivalent to approximately twelve (12%) percent of the building.
The Conditional Use Permit is also subject to the following conditions:
Outside sales areas are fenced or screened from view of the neighboring residential
uses or an abutting residential district in compliance with Chapter 3 Section 2 G of
this ordinance.
Comment: No sales area is proposed for the site. The use is instead an outdoor service
use. The applicant has previously noted that there will be no outdoor alcohol sales in the
area. The applicant has indicated that all actual sales activity, including alcohol sales,
Planning Commission Agenda- 03/10/2009
will be confined to the building, although plastic beverage service after sale will be
allowed into the court area.
All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source shall not be visible
from the public right of way or from neighboring residences and shall be in
compliance with Chapter 3 Section 2H of this ordinance
Comment: The applicant is proposing to light the court area with wall pack lighting,
currently mounted on the building, or to be added on the existing building walls. A
photometric plan for the area had been submitted, indicating readings up to 5.9
footcandles at the perimeter of the court.
Many facilities of this type augment lighting for safety and convenience of the
participants. Addition of lighting around the perimeter of the facility would shine toward
residential areas in violation of the City’s ordinances, so the City and applicant should
be certain that the current lighting will be adequate if approval is granted. Any
additional lighting beyond the noted shielded wallpacks will require an amendment to the
Conditional Use Permit, and must be reviewed by the City. If available light becomes an
issue, the applicant should consider shortening the hours of operation where natural
light will be adequate.
Sales area is grassed or surfaced to control dust
Comment: As stated above, no sales area is proposed for the site. The use will be
surfaced with sand appropriate for a volleyball court.
The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met
Comment: The applicant has followed required protocol as related to application for
conditional use permit.
Fencing. As opposed to the vinyl coated chain link previously proposed, the applicant is
proposing a 12’ high mesh netting around the perimeter of the courts. The net material
will provide an effective barrier, while not posing as a significant safety risk. Such
material has been used for other recreational facilities within the City.
Access Control. The applicant has indicated that no exterior access will be provided to
the fenced court area. Access into and out of the court will be through the interior doors
on the west side of the building (east side of courts).
Parking. The minimum parking requirement for bowling alleys is five parking spaces
for each lane, plus the required additional spaces for related uses contained within the
principal structure, as outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. A total of 473 stalls were
approved with the original site plan. The total parking requirement included stalls for the
future banquet space, which will be replaced by the volleyball courts in the interim. As
such, no additional parking is required for the use.
Planning Commission Agenda- 03/10/2009
Landscaping. The approved landscaped plan from the previous application illustrates a
row of shrubs and a row of deciduous trees screening the court area from the neighboring
properties to the west. An opaque vinyl fence has also been installed around the northern
perimeter of the site. The existing building will screen the courts from the residential
properties to the north. No additional landscaping is proposed as part of the application,
not specified by the ordinance.
Signage. The applicant has not proposed any additional signage as part of the
application. Any additional signage requested for the court area must be approved by the
City, and would require an amendment to the CUP.
Hours of Operation. The applicant and City officials have previously discussed hours
of operation ending between 9:00 and 11:00. The current application suggests a general
end to outdoor activities at 9:30, with a “lights out” requirement of 10:00. The applicant
had discussed an expected season of spring through September. The City has also
discussed variable hours by season, such as during the school year.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Motion to approve the request for a Conditional Use Permit for open and outdoor
sales and service, based on a finding that the subject use is consistent with the
intent of the B-4 District and as noted in the Findings of Fact, and that the
conditions of approval have been met, subject to the conditions outlined in
Exhibit Z.
2. Motion to deny the request for a Conditional Use Permit for open and outdoor
sales and service, based on a finding to be made by the Planning Commission.
RECOMMENDATION
The applicant is proposing a volleyball court facility on the south side of the bowling
alley building, facing School Boulevard. This area is where the future banquet facility
will be constructed, and the volleyball courts will essentially be an interim use.
This report details previous concerns noted by neighboring property owners. While the
applicant has sought to remedy or address many of these issues with the current
applicant, potential for incompatibility of uses may still exist.
However, the application technically complies with the ordinance requirements for
Conditional Use Permit within the B-4 District. The proposed use will be screened from
neighboring residential properties by the building itself. Additionally, the applicant and
City have exceeded ordinance buffering requirements between the residential and
commercial use districts. The applicant has also indicated that as part of the approved
CUP they intend to restrict lighting, access, and hours of operation in an effort to mitigate
negatively impacting adjacent properties. As such, staff recommends approval, subject to
the conditions in Exhibit Z.
Planning Commission Agenda- 03/10/2009
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Applicant Narrative
B. Proposed Court Site Plan
C. Site and Landscape Plan
D. Site Images
E. Lighting Plan
F. Fence Detail
Z. Conditions of Approval
DRAFT FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
1. The proposed use, pursuant to the conditions attached to the CUP approval, would be
in compliance with the terms of the Zoning Ordinance related to Outdoor Sales and
Service in the B-4 Zoning District.
2. The limitation on hours is necessary to protect the residential character of the
neighboring properties due to lights and noise.
3. Due to the orientation of the building, and the location of the existing lighting, no
direct light will impact the adjoining residential neighborhood.
4. There will be no outdoor sales or service of alcoholic beverages in the outdoor area,
permitting the applicant to manage the impact of alcohol consumption in the subject
area.
5. All activity will occur within an enclosed (fenced) area which will minimize the
impact of patrons wandering into the areas that are more exposed to the neighboring
property.
6. The facility has adequate parking to facilitate the new activity.
7. Adequate screening exists between the subject site and the neighboring property to
accommodate the outdoor use.
Planning Commission Agenda- 03/10/2009
EXHIBIT Z: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
River City Extreme
1. All outdoor service activity will occur within an enclosed (fenced) area.
2. The hours of operation shall be limited to 5:00 PM to 10:00 PM, with a general end to
activities around 9:30, and lights out by 10:00 PM.
3. Upon construction of Phase II of the principal building, the volleyball court use shall no
longer be permitted.
4. Any additional lighting or signage to accommodate the volleyball use shall require an
amendment to the Conditional Use Permit. Alternative hours should be considered if the
current/natural light proves to be inadequate.
5. A building permit shall be required for any fence in excess of six feet in height.
6. The applicant is to comply with the stated limitations on access and outdoor sales and
service as specified within the staff report of 3/10/09.
Planning Commission Agenda- 03/2/2010
6. Consideration to review of a Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Sales as related to an
Outdoor Vollevball Facility at River City Extreme. (AS)
REFERENCE & BACKGROUND
In March of 2010, the Planning Commission and City Council reviewed a request for a
conditional use permit for Outdoor Sales for an outdoor volleyball and games facility for
River City Extreme.
The City Council approved the CUP request, with the following conditions:
1. All outdoor service activity will occur within an enclosed (fenced) area.
2. The applicant shall consider netting in addition to vinyl coated chain linkfence
around the perimeter of the court area.
3. The hours of operation shall be limited to Noon (12:00 PM) to 10:00 PM with a
general end to activities around 9:30 and lights out by 10:00 PM.
4. Any additional lighting other than the proposed wall pack lighting to accommodate
the volleyball use shall require an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit. Wall
pack lighting shall be shielded per ordinance. Alternative hours should be
considered if the current/natural light proves to be inadequate.
S. A building permit shall be required for any fence in excess of six feet in height.
6. The applicant is to comply with the stated limitations on access and outdoor sales and
service as specified in the staff report of 3/10109.
7. The conditional use permit is to be reviewed by the City for compliance in November
2009.
This report is provided in relationship to condition 7 above. The review was identified in
order to determine proper compliance with the approved conditions and to review
potential negative impact to the neighborhood.
In regard to compliance with the balance of the conditions, the applicant has complied
with items 3, 4, and 5.
Conditions 1, 2 and 6 will require clarification by the applicant. At the time of staff
observance during last year's operation, it appears that applicant chose only to erect
netting around the court perimeter. No vinyl -coated chain link fence exists currently on
the volleyball site.
Additionally, although not assigned as an individual condition, the Planning Commission
specifically cited the need for a completely enclosed facility that would not permit
entrance and access to the court facility except as allowed through the building. This
relates to conditions 1 and 6.
Planning Commission Agenda- 03/2/2010
The netting appeared to permit access to and from the court area from the exterior.
The applicant will be present during the meeting and should provide clarification on these
items.
The City has received only one comment specifically regarding the outdoor volleyball
court (although it has received other complaints regarding light glare at the site). The
comment received was not a complaint, but rather a request for documentation regarding
the CUP.
At this time, Planning Commission is asked to complete the required review of the CUP.
The Planning Commission should note that the permit granted to the applicant is a
conditional use permit, not an interim use permit. Therefore, the CUP is considered
granted if the applicant meets the assigned conditions. If it is determined that the
applicant does not meet and/or does not intend to meet the assigned conditions, the City
would be required to start the process for CUP revocation.
A copy of the 2009 staff report is provided for reference.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
The Planning Commission is not required to take action if it finds that the applicant meets
or can demonstrate the ability to meet the required conditions.
If the Planning Commission determines that the conditions have not been satisfactorily
met, the Planning Commission can make a motion to begin the CUP revocation process.
RECOMMENDATION
None.
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Staff Report from March, 2009, including:
1)
Applicant Narrative
2)
Proposed Court Site Plan
3)
Site and Landscape Plan
4)
Site Images
5)
Lighting Plan
6)
Fence Detail
7)
Conditions of Approval
Planning Commission Agenda – 3/2/10
1
7. Community Development Director’s Update. (AS)
State of the City Event
Staff provided a good detailed presentation to the business community on Tuesday,
February 16, 2010. Topics included: overall recap of activity in 2009, budget reality and
restraints, proposed street projects by the City, County and State for 2010, Zoning
Rewrite initiative, launching of the Business Retention and Expansion Program, and
available funding sources for businesses through the City. The City Administrator,
Finance Director, Community Development Director, City Engineer, Economic
Development Director, and consultants from MFRA and the University of MN were all
presenters.
The State of the City event was well attended with approximately 130 interested
businesses or citizens present. Subsequent to the event, Staff has received many
compliments on the event. The business community appreciates staff and elected officials
continual efforts to communicate upfront.
Staff will be providing a similar presentation at the March 8th City Council meeting for
public viewing via video.
Building Activity
Commercial and Industrial Permits
Commercial development remains strong. PetSmart will be opening at the end of
March. GNC, a health and nutrition store, submitted building plans for their new
store at Union Crossing. We are working with three other businesses who would
like to apply for a permit to remodel existing buildings. Another three companies
are looking at expansions of their existing buildings. Additionally, a local
business is looking at moving into the old Flickers building.
Residential
To-date in 2010, we have issued 10 permits for basement finishes. Siding and
roofing permits have been trickling in at a slower pace than last year. We have
issued a few single family addition permits. Forty-three permits have been issued
to date.
Rental units
We have received $26,000 from rental applications for 2010. This represents
about 80% of the estimated rental units. We have a good start on the inspections
for these units but many more to inspect.
To date, 248 properties with 986 total dwelling units have applied for the 2010
license.
Planning Commission Agenda – 3/2/10
2
Development Notes
In addition to the actual projects-in-progress noted above by the Building Department,
development inquiries have been on the rise. The City has been fielding a number of
calls related to possible downtown redevelopment (both small and large scale), potential
expansions in Oakwood Industrial Park and Otter Creek Business Park, and new
commercial construction along Highway 25.
The City has also received a planning application for the replatting of the former Jacob
Holdings (Denny Hecker) properties. The replatting is being requested to accommodate
the sale of properties to an existing tenant.
Downtown Planning
During its February meeting, the EDA authorized moving forward with an RFP for
downtown planning. This is an important step forward in achieving another of the goals
set by the Comprehensive Plan. As Council may recall, the 2008 Comp Plan adopted the
1997 Downtown Revitalization Plan as policy, simply because no firm understanding on
goals and objectives for the downtown were established in the comp planning process.
However, the 2008 Comp Plan recognized that new planning efforts were needed to
ensure that a vision and plan for action in the downtown was created and incorporated.
Staff will be meeting the week of the 22nd to discuss the scope of the project, the
construction of an RFP, and how to develop a general process framework for the project
as a whole. The RFP will include a comprehensive approach to the planning effort,
addressing a variety of factors, including:
o Transportation system and vehicle circulation planning promoting the
highest potential of land.
Major arterial and collector route intersections and access
modifications
Pedestrian movement
Parking
Directional signage
o Urban Design
o Community Reader Boards
o Financing programs and alternatives
o Market analysis
It is fully anticipated that the planning project will involve the efforts of a number of City
commissions, as well as the downtown property owners and businesses, and other
interested stakeholders.
In approving the preparation of an RFP, the EDA authorized the use of TIF excess from
Districts to fund the project.
Planning Commission Agenda – 3/2/10
3
Upon completion, a draft of the RFP will be provided to the EDA and City Council for
comment and approval. It is also expected that the Planning Commission will take an
active role in the planning process for the project.
Zoning Ordinance Revision
MFRA consultant and City staff met with the IEDC on February 17th to review a draft of
the zoning ordinance to date. The IEDC members were able to provide general feedback
on the commercial and industrial district purpose statements, principal uses and accessory
uses.
The Steering Committee also met on the 17th and also reviewed the commercial and
industrial districts in depth.
Staff also met with MFRA last week to review the latest draft in its entirety.
The next Steering Committee meeting will be on March 16th.
Bertram Chain of Lakes
Elected officials from both the County and City, as well as City staff, met with
representatives from the YMCA on February 18th to discuss a 2010 acquisition.
The County/City will also be applying for 2010 Legacy grant and LCCMR funds in the
hopes of completing a 2011 purchase.
As a side note – the Friends of Bertram Lake are now a formal organization under the
umbrella of the MN Parks and Trails Council. They have a website, Facebook page and
email subscriber list, with supporters and friends numbering in the hundreds.
NSP Grant
To date, 7 closings have occurred utilizing NSP funds. These funds have been provided
for down payment assistance and rehab of existing foreclosed homes. The City recently
submitted an application asking for the State to consider adding a few more
neighborhoods to the existing grant boundaries. Previously grants funds could only be
utilized within West Monticello, Core City, Featherstone, Nathan’s Court, Hunters
Crossing, and Sunset Ponds. Due to the fact we requested our land acquisition and
demolition dollars be transferred to the down payment assistance funds, the Core City
was removed as an eligible neighborhood. The State recently approved adding Cardinal
Hills and Wildwood Ridge to eligible neighborhoods. The City still has $307,000 to
spend by September.
Mn/DOT TH 25 Mill and Overlay Project Update
Mn/DOT plans to begin working on this mill and overlay project after the Labor Day
weekend in hopes of minimizing impacts to seasonal traffic using this corridor. In
addition, Mn/DOT informed City staff that they plan on bidding the project with a
Planning Commission Agenda – 3/2/10
4
requirement that the contractor obtain a variance from the City allowing them to
complete much of the work outside the standard work hours listed in our ordinance. This
is being proposed to minimize traffic congestion after observing numerous traffic
congestion issues during the mill and overlay project completed in Big Lake last fall.
Since most of the properties abutting Highway 25 are commercial properties, this is likely
a reasonable request, but if Council feels a variance would not be in the City’s best
interest, it would be good to inform Mn/DOT of this now so they can bid the project
assuming day-time work operations, which will affect their bid prices.
Mn/DOT I-94 Twin Bridge Replacement Project Update
Weather permitting, Mn/DOT hopes work will resume on the decking of the new
westbound bridge in mid to late-March, and they hope that the new concrete deck slab
can be poured in April. Mn/DOT feels they are slightly ahead of schedule on the project,
but they are not yet willing to say it will be completed earlier than November as
originally projected.
School Boulevard Street Lighting Update
Staff completed the plans and is working on cost estimates for a street and pedestrian
lighting project for School Boulevard between Edmonson Avenue and Fenning
Avenue/CSAH 18. This project will provide enhanced lighting for drivers on School
Boulevard, as well as for pedestrians using the adjacent pathways and pedestrian
crossings. Staff is working with Signature Lighting and Wright Hennepin to complete
plans, cost estimates and photometric plans for Council to review during the first Council
meeting in March. The last time this project was presented to Council there were various
questions raised on how much of pathway would be lit and how much would not be.
Staff therefore wanted to have photometric plans available at the meeting to better
address such questions.
Junk Amnesty Day/Recycling
As the Planning Commission is likely aware, the City Council has eliminated the City
Junk Amnesty Day due to budget constraints. The City has prepared a list of resources
for the recycling and disposal of materials that previously had been brought to the retired
Junk Amnesty Day. The information is currently available by a call or visit to the City
Hall, Public Works reception desks or online at the city’s webpage.
x ix ix ix ix ix
x Ix Ix Ix Ix Ix Ix
G
Q
K
0
iqx
x
O
z
u
u
Q
F
x
w
G
LL W
Z ip
W H
W v
N
F, Z m
u a n' N
Q
o
O m m
V
w w Z
H
u v N
2- N
to
C 0 v
N p
WZo
z L
E
C
R
o
z
to 0 c' u
wZ°
w
>
oL,
m u
o m
O u �
c
W
o
V p m
O o 2
Q
H�
..J
QW
o
{.7
_
p
W
>
E
O
o
-
0
2
u
3
Z
C
E
0
—
C�
£
>
i
Ou
>
O
M
0
0
3
°
o
_
E
0
3
v
E
3
Y
>
?
3
3
3
3
3
�+
3
3
3
3
3
01
0)
m
M
N
O1
00
00
N
D
C)
O
.ti
O
0
Wr
1�
N
Lh
41
00
c -I
M
1�
N
Ol
lD
Ln
n
09
.-I
to
00
N
LO
N
ifl
Ol
N
un
00
1�
ci
0)
N
m
lD
Ln
N
o
N
00
l0
m
tD
m
N
m
LO
N
m
to
to
N
mm
W
Ol
N
lO
O1
N
m
l0
1l
N
m
W
1�
M
n
n
n
r
n
t\
n
OH
j
0J
01
-
to
Vf v1
�' c in N
O-
N - Y
C
;
+°
y
v
E
m
00 (0
O_ N
N 01
N N N
�°
@
w
E V
Y
W
E v w
V
o v
s
O
u m
C O
N
3
N
c,£
O c
u+
C
m
°
v£
N
N
w
C a
v U r
3
o V
o£
7
m
a1
L
o
0
rQo >
v'^i y
O p 7
V -0 W O
_ >
u
'C
Q O
m
V
N
Q
7-
C
N i
H i N
N
H
OJ
H
3 a o
o
3 c
v c a3
v
Q
u
O O
L 9
'O
v
£
ra
N
N
N i= u N L
u a
L
u
C
u
N
N N
t.'
01 w
�n
0J
u
Y C
vi
A L7
in
i
O
O
(CU
L
'�
N
cu w
0-_
N
> Y
C
7 w
d u
O
N
M
m u
N
-
'� a
N 6 -
v o v�
m
m
u_0
a
o
OJ
c
C
V m o
>
0
>
00
m
u
Q
o v ^
•p OO
L
v
V
Cl-
�
u o
3
u
'O
c
c
U) m
Q w
R j N
L
'
u
to
-
.O
m `7
N
0/
u a+
Q1 O
N
O. 2 'O
Ou
O-
V
r0 N
O`0
Q O a+
V
V
U
O
u
-p
v01
O
G
Q
K
0
I
L
O
z
u
u
Q
F
1N
w
G
LL W
Z ip
W H
W v
N
F, Z m
u a n' N
Q
o
O m m
V
w w Z
H
u v N
2- N
to
C 0 v
N p
WZo
z L
O wo Z
V >'
C
Zo
o
z
to 0 c' u
wZ°
w
>
oL,
m u
o m
O u �
u V moi' O
W
i+ N N
V p m
O o 2
Q
z
H�
..J
QW
a
{.7
_
V
z
W
>
OC
3
O
w
-
0
2
Z
W_
L
0
O
�
u
Q
Z
LL
z
Z
2 w
T Z O
Z> 0O
V to
W Z
V M
v
J C O
>> Cl)
K'O M
Ln
o Ln
F v n
C7 Q Z
cc Ln
uw `r,
w Q�
�i
J Z
Z C L^
Z Z
OC L Z
i0
W
v° o
Q L 2
0 5 2
tA
a
v LL° (IJa
W m
Z�
m v
to
z
a s °�
C o
V
d! ,
W Ol O
O tD O
Z Lo Cep
Z .--i O
O
Q
LM
w
-
0
W
Z
zO
—
>
W
0 N
m
2� m
W�p N
x o Z
u c
V; f6
O
m L u
�uFn 0'
� C
Ol
O m
u
Q
Z L N
Z
O o
a N Ln
Ln
Y N Z
v_ Z2
O �
m 3 0
O L
00 O1
=V
Y
O O
N o �
W
0