Loading...
City Council Agenda Packet 03-12-1984AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Monday, March 12, 1984 - 7:30 P.M. Mayor: Arve A. O:imsmo Council Members: Fran Fair, Jack Maxwell, Dan Blonigen, Ken Maus. 1. Call to Order. 2. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting neid on February 27, 1984. 3. Citizens Comments/Petitions, Requests and Complaints. OLD BUSINESS 4. Consideration of a Proposal to Rehabilitate Highway 25 and the Mississippi River Bridge. 5. Consideration of Acquiring the Bob Saxon Property as an Addition to East Bridge Park. G. Consideration of a Request for a Conditional Use and a Variance Request to Allow Signs in Exceso of Ordinance Requirements, Applicant - Metcalf and Larson. NEW BUSINESS 7. Meadow Oak CIS Scoping Meeting. B. Consideration of waiving the Fee for a Liquor License on a Proposed Project. 9. Adjournment. MINUTES L REGULAR MEETING - MDNTICELIq CITY COUNCIL February 27, 1984 - 7:30 P.M. Members Present: Arve A. Grimsme, Jack Maxwell, Dan Blonigen, Fran Fair, Ken Maus. Members Absent: None. 1. Call to Order. 2. Approval of Minutes. Motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Blonigen, to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held February 13, 1984. Voting in favor was Arvo A. Grimsmo, Jack Maxwell, Dan Blonigen, Ken Maus. Abstaining was Fran Fair due to absence at the last meeting. !. Citizens Co::mente/Petitiono, Requests and Como lainte. Mr. Ed Schaffer appeared bufore tho Council to express concerns over the following items rola ting basically to truck traffic within Monticello. His first concern was regarding truck routes within dMonticello, as he felt large trucks and sami's were not using the designated City truck routes and were driving .all over residential streets. He noted that the City Ordinance does limit truck traffic In residential areas only for making deliveries, etc., and not for general traffic purposes. In addition, he noted that Liefort Trucking was grandfatherod in previously to have his trucking business located at his residential home, but he felt that Mr. Liafert should not be allowed to continuo to expand his business by adding now trucks and semi's and be allowed_ to use the residential neighborhood for his business. Mr. Schaffer also expros sod concerns over the former Teslow Auto Bales facility, now known as K 6 n Auto Repair, being allowed to park their vehicles on the residential streets rather than using their own parking lot, which the ordinance required them to have . Mr. Schaffer also expressed concerns over the large amount of traffic on Broadway with vehicles making U-turns and continuously driving up and down Broadway. Mr. Schaffer requested that the Council look into these matters and if necessary, direct the Sheriff's Department to use better enforcement procedures to eliminate some of these problems . Tho Council took Mr. Schaffer's comments under advisement and will be reviewing the matter wit It Lite staff and the local Police Department. Council Minutes - 2/27/84 4. Consideration of Approval of the Final Plat for Par West, Applicant - John Sandberq. Mr. John Sandberg presented his final plat for Council review and approval for Par West residential subdivision. Mr. Sandberg noted that the permits for the sewer and water crossings to serve this subdivision have been granted by the Burlington Northern Railroad and that the road access off of County Road 75 is in the process of being approved and shouldn't be a problem. All public improvements such as sewer, water, storm sewer, and street improvements will bo installed by the developer with the City incurring no financial obligation with this project. The park dedication requirements consisting of approximately 1.6 acres of park land and $5,750.00 in cash has been agreed to by the developer and the City previously. As a result, motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Fair, and unanimously carried to approve the final plat for Par west subdivision as presented but to withhold signing the recording documents until all public improvements are completed by the developer and accepted by the City. S. Consideration of Approval of Plans and Specifications for Additions to Pump Houso M1 and N2. Public Works Director, John Simola, reviewed with the Council the plans and specifications for additions to both Pump House N1 and N2 and also discussed the reasons for the proposed additions. As part of the proposed addition to Pune House M2, concerns were raised by Fire Dupartment members and Council members as to whether the proposed addition to this Pump House might affect future additions to the Piro Hall. The reason was that if an addition was built to the north of the present Piro Hall, the Pump House addition would interfere with the additional two stalls added to the Fire Hall. In light of these concerns, the Fire Department Building Committee met with City staff membars to review throe alternatives for housing the future Monticello Volunteer Fire Department equipment. One alternative would have been to build two new stalls to the north of the existing building, which would go right- up against the existing Pump House. This alternative would eaure the proposed addition to Pump House 02 to be changed. A second alternative was to build one stall on the north and of the building and to relocate the ratting rooms and sanitary facilities and construct six additional bays on the south and of the building exiting .mito Third Street. This alternative would require major renovation of the buildrnq including bearing walls,a■ the building would not Iii dasigne.d to allow for thix type of an addition without major changes. The third alternative - 2 - 0 l Council Minutes - 2/27/84 discussed by the Fire Department would be to build an entirely new i Fire Barn at an undetermined location that could be constructed 4 to have all an facing in one direction and exiting onto one street. It appears that the long tens solution for the Fire Department would be to construct a new building to meet its present needs and future expansion. Until a firm direction is decided on regarding a new Fire Hall or Fire Hall expansion at tho present site, it was the consensus of the Council that proposed additions to Pump House 02 be tabled. It was noted by the Public Works Director that if a decision is made to pursue a feasibility study for a new Fire Hall at a different location, he would still recommend that both additions to the Pump Houses be completed in 1984 as yl --.J. The Fire Department Building committee will be working with the City staff to locate posuible sites for a new Piro Hall. G. Consideration of a Request for a Conditional Use and a Variance to Allow Siq ns in Exce,;u of ordinance Requirements. Applicant - Metcalf and Larson. At their February 14, 1984, meeting, the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use and Variance Re quest for outside signs in excess of the amount stipulated in the Zoning Ordinance. Upon adjournment of the meeting, it became obvious to all membcrs of the Planning Commission that they were uncomfortable with the final determination that was made, and the membare indicated their desire to again review the request. The Zoning Ordinance currently stipulates that a building which houses more then one business is only allowed 5% of the silhouette wall square footage for wall signs. If a building of similar sire has only one occupant, that businesr would be allowed up to 20% of the silhouette wall square footage for a sign. 'hare appear to be concerns over whether the Ordinance's intent was to limit multiple occupants to only 5% or whether this segment of the Ordinance was meant to deal with large shopping centers only. As a result, motion was nude by Maus, seconded by Blonigan, and unanimously carried to direct the Planning Commission to have a special meeting to again review this Conditional Una and Variance Reyueat. and to review th w Ordinance pertaining to sign usages amunyst buildings with more then one occupant and to report back to the Council 17 March 12, 1984. If the Planning Cosnission felt the Urdinance wa u unclear, the Planning Commission could adopt a resolution puLliny into vffcct do interim rule addroasiny t1w Conditional Ube 11L-rmitu for e.ignN on buildings that have two or more businesses. - 3 - 0 J Council Minutes - 2/27/84 7. Consideration of Approving a Proeosal to Reelat Lots It 2, and 7, Block 1, Holker's Hillside Addition, Applicant - Hal Wehman. Mr. Hal Wehman presented a proposal to replat Lots 1, 2, and 7 of Block 1, Holker's Hillside Addition into four building lots. Previously, the Council indicated that Mr. Wehman should consider purchasing Outlet A of Lauring Hillside Terrace, a small triangular piece, and incorporate it into his overall building proposal so that he could achieve the square footage requirements needed for his 4-plax projects. In preparing to build a duplex, Mr. Wehman ran across some problems with financing and title and siting of the building. It seems that Lots 1, 2, and 7 are in torrens title and, as such, must have only one building per lot rather than parts of more than one building on a single lot. As a result, Mr. Wehman presented a proposal iot awplaLLiuy i -LV P—I— ty ;it vauwa L. accommodate the torrens title. Upon reviewing the proposed plat, it was discovered that the triangular Outlot A had not been included in the replat because this parcel is in abstract title while the balance of the land is in torrens title and, as such, cannot be platted together. In addition, the replatting would have a lot called 0, which was totally land locked without frontage on any public street. Without some kind of guaranteed ingress/egress easement, the City could not approve a plat that contained a lot no one could reach from a public street. A recommendation was made by the staff that either Lot B be altered to provide some sort of access onto a public street, or an easement be included in the replat ■o that this parcel would have access. According to Mr. Wahman's attorney, an easement could be provided for this lot but only after the plat was recorded and not as part of the recording. Although this would provide a solution to the problem, it appears that the City would still have to approve the replatting first before they could obtain an easement. Motion was made by Maus, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously carried to adopt the following Resolution vacating all existing utility and drainage easements currently on Lots 1, 2, and 7, Block 1, Holker's Hillside Addition. Bea Resolution 1984 Ml. Motion was made by Fair, seconded by Maus, and unanimously carried to approve the replat creating four new parcels called Lot■ A, B, C, and D as proposed provided an easement is recorded across Parcel C for ingress and egress to Lot 0. As part of the approval, it is to be understood that no building permit for a duplex on Parcel 8 will be issued until all drainage and utility easement■ along with the Ingress and egress easement for Lot 0 are submitted to the Pity. - 4 - 0 Council Minutes - 2/27/84 S. Conuideratioi. of Enterinq an Annual Maintenance Contract for d City Hall Rurnact•/Air Conditioninq Unit. It was recommended by the City staff that some sort of an annual maintenance contract be entered into with a service firm for servicing the City Hall furnace and air conditioning unit. Basically, the furnace and air conditioning unit would be checked four times a year with the major one being in the spring when the heating system is shut down and the air conditioning system is started. The second major check would be in the fall when the air conditioning unit is shut off and the heating system is started. Two additional checks would be performed during both the mid -summer season for cooling and mid- winter season for heating. Ouotes for service contracts were received from three different companies including Pneumatic Controls, Comfort Craft, Inc., and St. Cloud Refrigeration. Comfort Craft, Inc., has recently worked on repairing the City Hall furnace and did an adequate job. Their quote is based on an estimated number of hours to do the four maintenance checks per year, although their actual billing would be lvus if less man houru were required. After reviewing thu quotes received from the various maintenance fines, motion was made by Pair, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously carried to approve tnterrng Into a one-year agreement with Comfort Craft, Inc., of St. Cluud for a maintenance projram for the City Hall fun wto and ale cunditioniug equipment rtarting March 1, 1964. The agreement would call for an hourly charge for actual hours worked rather than a firm bare price. 9. Consideration of a Pr000wal to Automate Elections. During 1983, the City Administrator and City staff investigated several automated election systemb that could be used by the City for general and primary elections. The City Administrator felt the most appropriate system for the City of Monticello and the most efficient would be one distributed by E.L. Marketing, which uses a punch card voting system with a punch card machine reader. This sami-automated system would replace the current pencil ballots used by the City in the past years. The punch card reader is the most expensive piece of equipment listing at $5,795.00. The entire system including the punch card reader, 12 voting stations, and other miscellaneous items, would put the purchase cost at approximately $8,702.00. Council concerns were raised over whether an automated system as proposed would possibly be obsolete in a few years with the advancement in technology that is prRwPnt today. It was noted by some Council - 5 - 0 Council Minutes - 2/27/84 members that possibly the City should just consider adding extra election judges to help with counting of the ballots rather than expending $8,000 or $9,000 for materials that can only be used a few times every other year. Using $8,700.00 as a cost figure, the City Administrator estimated that it would take approximately 513 election years to recover the cost vs. using paper ballots. Although only $1,500.00 was budgeted for election equipment in 1984, motion was made by Fair, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously carried to authorize the City Administrator to purchase the automated equipment from E.L. Marketing for $8,702.00 with the balance of the funds coming from the Capital Improvement Revolving Fund. 10. Consideration of Bids and Proposals for the Replacement Purchase of a Public Works Pickup Truck. Specifications were prepared by the Public Works Director, John Simola, for a new 4-wheol drive, 3/4 ton pickup truck to replace the 1975 Ford Pickup Truck currently used by the Public Works Department. The specifications were given to five local area dealers with three bids being received by the City on Friday, February 24. After the bids were opened, a reverse bidding auction was available to each participant to give them an opportunity to lower their price if they so desired. The bids received also included a trade-in amount for the City's 1975 Ford Pickup Truck. The City also advertised the 1975 Ford Pickup for sale in the local J newspaper and accepted bids until 4:30 P.M., Friday the 24th,from private parties. The highest private offer came from Steve Vollmer in the amount of $3,200.00. The bids received for the now pickup truck were as followa: Purchase Private Dealer Price Trade -In Not Offer Net Country Chryalor $10,053.00 $1,800.00 $8,253.00 $3,200.00 $6,853.00 Monticello Ford $10,683.90 6 993.90 $9,690.00 $3,200.00 $7,483.90 Gould Bros. Chovrolot 611,045.15 $2,150.00 $8,895.15 $3,200.00 $7,645.15 The lowest not price for a now 4 x 4 pickup was from Country Chrysler of Elk River, assuming rho City sold its 1975 Ford Pickup to the privato party for $3,200.00 The not cost for the now pickup would than bo $6,653.00. - 6 - 0 1 14 r Council Minutes - 2/27/84 Motion was made by Fair, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously carried to award the purchase of a new 1984 Dodge, 1/4 ton, Pickup to Country Chrysler of Elk River for a purchase price of $10,057.00 and to sell the 1975 Ford Pickup Truck for $1,200.00 to Steve Vollmer. 11. Consideration of Approval of February Bills. IAotion was made by Blonigen, seconded by Maus, and unanimously carried to approve the bills for the month of February as presented. Assiu LanLy klminisLra Lor 0 - 7 — Council Agenda - 3/12/84 AGENDA SUPPLE14ENT Consideration of a Proposal to Rehabilitate Highway 25 and the Mississippi River Bridge. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Howard Dahlgren contacted me by telephone Tuesday evening to report that MN/DOT had agreed to certain compromise features of their Highway 25 design. The compromise design as I understand it from the phone conversation entails a striped center turn lane extending from the intersection at River Street to the intersection of Fourth Street, a total of three blocks. Extending from Fourth Street south to thn i,d of the project, the raised center island will __ _ _._____. ._. __'`t^__n _n -,a -,cd rh^ ^f rvn t­ffiq engineers who investigated the striped centerlanein various Minnesota communities as well as various communities throughout the nation. The result of their research is that the striped center lane is considered effective and is an economical method of traffic control. After reviewing the research, the MN/DOT officials apparently conceded, with one condition. Mtl/DOT will allow the elimination of the raised median if and only if there is only one mid -block driveway on each side of the street. Thus, it is essential that National Bushing and Wright County State Bank reach an equiable agreement so that there is only one access point on that side of the block. Likewise, Northwest Clinic will have to forfeit its private drive to accommodate a joint drive into that block. Mr. Dahlgren requested that I sot up a meeting for 10:00 A.M. Thursday morning, March 8, between himself, a representative of the bank, National Bushing, Maxwell Realty, and the Clinic. Ile will at that time stress to them that their cooperation with one another and the State is essential. Simply put, if there is more than one entry mid -block, the State will insiut that the raised median be installed. Mr. Dahlgren also requested that 1 set up a meeting for 1:30 in the afternoon that same day for all of the people who had participated in the earlier information meetings with him. 110 iu hoping to go over the entire Lerma of the agreement reached between MIJ/DOT and tie, as the City's Planner, and explain both the benefits and the necessities of the proposed compromise. Mr. Dahlgren also informed me that a representative of MN/DOT will be attending the meeting with the drawings of the now plans, and that either lie or a representative of his firm will also be in attendance to answer any questions anyone may have. lie is aiLici- pating that the entire controversy should now be averted, and that the resolution of the reconstruction should take a minimal amount of Lima. Ile expressed to me that in his opinion the problem has - 1 - Council Agenda - 3/12/86 been adequately resolved and that hopefully there will be general agreement to the proposal from all sides. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: The various alternative actions are myriad, but based on the directive that the City's Consulting Planner become involved in the process in an effort to reach a solution to the problem, 1 think the only real alternative is to follow the expert advice of the Planner and the Department of Transportation. Basically, if they and all other concerned parties are in general agreement that the proposal is the best solution, then it would be likely that the City Council would concur. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Upon the intervention of Mr. Dahlgren into this matter, the staff nas 'Merl iaiguir....... -. .3 1.h'^^ heer mnA. aware all along oftheprogress and the intent of all discussions between Dahlgren and MN/DUT. Staff, however, has not seen drawings of the altered proposal or any other technical data. Thus, not having access to all of the new data and research inforaati on, the staff cannot draft a formal recommendation. D. SUPPORTING DATA: There is no supporting data as of this writing, but any information received between now and meeting time will be delivered as soon as it is received in City Nall. - 2 - Council Agenda - 3/12/84 5. Consideration of Acquirinq the Bob Saxon Property as an Addition to East Bridge Park. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Inst fall Mr. and Mrs. Saxon appeared before the Planning Commission and Council in application for a variance to build a garage. At that time we postponed any decision because we were considering the reconstruction of the highway and bridge. The notion at that time was that the Saxon property would make adequate replacement property for tile land lost to the bridge construction. Similarly, we thought in terms of this land being appropriate for the development of small parking facility that would serve both the park as well as the Senior Center. During preliminary negotiations, Mr. Saxon re- quested $70,000.00 for his property. An informal appraisal done by Jack put the property at approximately $54,000.00. Because we knew the State would reimburse us in part for the land that they wo-Ad be taking, we postponed any decision on the acquisition and asxed Jaxuns Lu buar wi Lir us while wu W,p Lvu w ..:: .0 .-.�:C ......_ amount the State might reimburse us. The Saxons agreed, but re- quested that we try and accomplish this by February or March. I immediately requested the State to do their appraisal and provide us with an indicaLiun of Um amount they would reimburse us. Last week 1 received the lotter from the State of Minnesota indicating their appraised value of the Saxon property was $55,000.00 and that the reimbursement would likely reflect that amount. I also received a copy of the proposed contract that would be executed between Ulu State and Lila City relating to the replacement of park lands as well as other amenities built into tlho construction project. On Monday the 5th 1 contacted Mr. Saxon and offered him $55,000.00 for the land, the amount that the State had appraised it at. On Tuesday the 6th, Mr. Saxon called back and said that that wasn't an un- reasonable number, but they would like on opportunity to sit down and diocusu it further with me. So on Wednesday the 7th I met with Mr. and Mrs. Saxon and dlucuosed the following. Their new asking price is for $59,500.00. This brooks down in the following way: The property, ao appraised, selling for $55,000.00. The $4,500.00 extra cost is the total tout of relocation. By relocation they are including interest on their interim note, title search, title inourance, closing costo, as well ao tile actual move. They aro including In Uho $4,500.00 ovary expenuo that they can come up with that it look them to got into their new home. I realize that any interest oxpenuo woo incurred on their own decision, not bo- eauue we directed them or authorized them to secure alternate funding for a now home. 1 do not think, however, that their ro- quest is at all unreasonable considering Lha fact that we created a uubutantial inconvenience for them from the very beginning of their variance request. - 3 - Council Agenda - 3/12/84 In addition to the cash, they would like the right and privilege of salvaging some of the interior such as newly laid carpeting, a newly installed bathtub, some new cupboards, etc. They will not become involved in the building demolition or salvage of that sort. Lastly, they would like very much to close on the whole matter by March 31 , 1984. 1 have discussed with Rick the financial considerations, and we feel that we can easily close just as soon as the paperwork is prepared. Rick indicates that we do have available funds for this so that we can process the transfer of property even though the reimbursement will come at a later date. we will, of course, want to transact the legal agreement with the State that will guarantee our reimbursement prior to making acquisition. Ultimately, the City's net cost of the land is the $4,500.00. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Reject the offer, elect not to purchase the property. Tnis would be going against a good faith effort on Saxons' behalf and of your earlier discussion. It would lessen the park area substantially after the loss of land to the highway. 2. Reject the offer, counter at the $55,000.00 level. Saxons may be in a position to be forced to accept this since they are currently acquiring another piece of property and have a luan outstanding on that, so they are holding two properties. They may choose to market the property rather than deal with the City which puts us back in the problem of losing the park land. They may choose to hold and rent the property, which again does not addreso the loss of park land to the highway. 3. Certify the offer of $59,500.00 and other conditions. This would allow the City to take possession of the land before the end of March. It would require an outlay of $59,500.00, $55,000.00 of which will be reimbursed eventually. It would give us control of the replacement land from the State of Mi nn000ta. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Chat we make the acquisition at the price of $59,500.00. I think that the excess $4,500.00 is not an unreasonable amount considering tho fact that we initiated the entire project. we asked them to consider selling and to conoidor relocating. Saxons have basically ag road to the appraisal price of the land but simply wish to rocapturo all of their expense for relocating. 1 further - 4 . Council Agenda - 3/12/84 think that it would show the City in a good light and would illustrate a good faith effort on our behalf. It also acknowledges the fact that Saxons have lowered their overall asking price by $10,500.00. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Letter from the State of Minnesota, copy of the agreement that will need to be entered with the State of Minnesota (Gary Pringle has made a few comments about this agreement that I attend to approach the State with). - 5 - rn�NNES,pr4 yDo Z° Minnesota Department of Transportation M 3�ir y� L)isuicl3 OF TaP� 301 Laurel Sl.. Ru. I I R,aknerd, Nlhuunota 56,101 12181828-2460 February 24, 1984 Mr. Tom Eidem City Administrator 250 East Broadway, P.O. Box 83A Monticello, MN 55362 In reply refer to: S.P. 7104-4390 (TH 75) Land Exehanoe Aoreemenr nr Pnrk Dear Mr. Eidem: Attached is an agreement for exchange of land between the City of Monticello and the Stnte. of Minnebota. Our attorney has approved this document as to form. At this time the State is requesting the City to execute the portion which requires signatures from Ute city attorney, mayor and city administrator. An estimate has been done. by one of our right of way agents based on Fair Market Value. The estimate is $55,000, this should give the City an idea what to expect from the State. Please return the form to me so the District Engineer can sign his approval. If you have any questions feel free to give me a call. Sincerely, 1 Jimtdaingarta;'P.E. / District Preliminary Design Engineer / cc: Jim Povich, P.E. - Brainard L. A. Dayton - Brainerd J4/rjn A,, f: gaol lrppor rumrY f: rnpfe,nr(i) .<3-0 AGREEMENT FOR EXCHANGE OF LAND It is hereby agreed this day of , 198_, by and between the City of Monticello, a Minnesota municipal cornoration, hereinafter called the City, and the Minnesota Department of Transportation, hereinafter called MnDOT that; WHEREAS, MnDOT has undertaken the .improvement of T.H. 25 within the City between River Strect and Sherburne County State Aid Highway 14; a na WIIEREAS, said imnrovements consist of highway construction and bridqe construction over the rlississippi River; and, WIiEREAS, the said improvements will require the acquisition from the City by MnDOT of approximately two-tenths of an acre of land in fee simple and approximately two-tenths of an acre of land in temporary construction casements as shown in Exhibit "A"; and, WHEREAS, under Minn. Stat. § 161.202, subd. 2, the City may acquire fUnetional replacement lands; and, WHEREAS, the hand shell in the city park is included in the land to hr, acquired by MnDOT. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY agreed by and between the City and MnDOT that: 0 I . The City shall acquire functi onal replacement land as shown on Exhibit "A" in orange and MnDOT shall ascertain and pay the 1 J City the reasonable value of the functional replacement land. Said value shall be determined and approved by MnDOT in advance of purchase' or condemnation by the City through an appraisal process established by MnDOT. 2. The City wi 11 convey to MnDOT the fee simple titl a to that portion of land as shown on Exhibit "A" colored red in form acceptable to MnDOT. nam fT�.al�ln fn •. .The`...J ... ... .... , ... ..n arrant MnDOT a temporary easement to that portion of land as shown on Exhibit "A" in yellow for the purpose of placing riprap along the river bank. 4. MnDOT agrees to pay to city the lesser of the cost to; a) relocate the existinq city band shell or; h) to construct a replacement hand shell on other land nwned or to be acquiree] by the City 0UL3ide of the lands required for T.H. 25 reconstruction. 5. A walkway for pedoatrian traffic only shall be constructed by MnDOT under the new bridge. The design and construction specifications for the walkway shall he the sole responsibility of MnDOT. City agrees thnt MnDOT shall have exclunive discretion and authority to nit.er, expand, rentrict or otherwiac limit the use of said walkway, including the right to totally remove the. name at any time nn MnDOT 01n11 seo fit. The city further ngroos to nasume nll liability for dmmnges nod to hold -2- 1 J harmless and indemnify MnDOT, its commissioner and employees from liability and claims of damage arising out of the use by the public of said pedestrian walkway on MnDOT right of way. 6. Any use by the city or public permitted by this agreement shall remain suhordinate to the right of the Minnesota np-partment of. Transportation to use the property for highway and transportation nurposes. This agreement does not grant any interest ,whatsoever in land, nor does it establish a oermanent park, recreation area or wildlife or waterfowl refuge facility that would become subject to Section 4(f) of. the Federal -Aid Hiahwav Act of 1968, nor docs it establish a hike trail or pedestrian way which would require replacement pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 160.264 (1982). STATE OF MINNESOTA RECOMMENDED APPROVAL CITY OF MOTICELLO Ry: By: Acting District Engineer Mayor By: By: Director, Right of way City Administrator Date: Date: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALTTY: Ry: Coruni as i oner Monticello City Attorney Date: APPROVED AS TO FORM Dy:!43A Sp tiatans Attorney Genera] Date: APPROVED AS TO EXECUTION 6y: Special Assistant Attorney General Date: -4- 0 Council Agenda - 3/12/84 G. Consideration of a Request for a Conditional Use and a variance Request to Allow Siqns in Excess of Ordinance Requirements, Applicant - Metcalf and Larson. (G.A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At the February 27, 1984, City Council meeting, the Council recom- mended sending back to the Planning Commission the Metcalf and La rson's Conditional Use and Variance Request application for further study. The Planning Commission set a special meeting for march 6, 1984, at 7:00 P.M., at which time Commission members heard consideration for approval of Metcalf and Larson's Conditional Use and variance Request proposals. In the meantime, City staff, through the City Attorney's offi^.e, prepared an amendment which was adopted into an interim rule amending the City's sign ordinance addressing specifically Title 10, Chapter 3, Section 9, Subdivision E. 43 Conditional Urea. also incorooratina it in with 01 Option A and 02 Option B under Title 10, Chapter 3, Section 9, Subdivision E, right in the Conditional Use Section y3. Checking intu the back- ground in which it was initially adopted into our Ordinance, the section reading "buildings" should have been essentially "shopping centers", and it would have addressed this portion of the Ordinance affecting Metcalf and [arson's requests. However, it was omitted in adoption of the Ordinance and, therefore, we are here with an Ordinance amendment to address all buildings and specifically the one in question, Metcalf and Larson. Due to the time element in- volved, an Ordinance amendment requires public hearing notice. llowover, knowing that the interim rule which we initially brought before the March 8, 1984, special Planning Commission meeting was legally invalid, we thought it would suffice until public hearings in regard to Monticello City Ordinance Amendments would be addressed later thin spring in with our Comprehensive Plan adoption public hearings. However, last nigh:. at the special Planning Commission meeting, the interim rule per so was challenged by Monticello citizen, John Sandberg, as to the legality of it. 1 indicated to Mr. Sandberg that we aro fully aware of the legal problem with it and that it was only an interim type rule until public hearings could be hold later this spring. Mr. Sandberg indicated lie would like to have public hearings hold now to address this matter at the present. Planning Commisaion members have out a public hearing data for ordinance amendment specifically for that part of the sign ordinance Title 10, Chapter 3, Section 9, Subdivision E, #3 with reference to Option A 01 and Option D 02, on March 26, 1984, at 6:30 P.M. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Deny Planning Commission recommendation that we have a public hearing on Ordinance amendment specifically to Title 10, Chapter 3, Suction 9, Subdivision E, 03. - 6 - Council Agenda - 3/12/84 2. Recommend approval of Planning Commission recommendation to have a public hearing and zoning ordinance amendment, Title 10, Chapter 3, Section 9, Subdivision E, 03. 3. Ignore Planning Commission recommendation and hear Metcalf and Larson's proposal for Variance Request under Title 10, Chapter 3, Section 9, Subdivision E, 01 Option A. 4. Ignore Planning Commission recommendation and hear Metcalf and !arson's proposal for the Conditional Use Request under Title 10, Chapter 3, Section 9, Subdivision E, p3, Conditional Use. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: We would recommend Alternative q2. Recommend Planning Commission set the date for a special meeting of March 26, 1984, at 6:30 P.M. to hear public testimony in a public hearing for Ordinance amendment to Title 10, Chapter 3, Section 9, Subdivision E, 03, with reference to 01 Option A and 02 Option B only. We feel that we, along with City Attorney's input and recommendation, have come up with an Ordinance amendment that would address existing buildings and/or new buildings and would sot a specific plan for application for a sign permit. D. SUPPORTING DATAi C, Copy of the existing Monticollo City Sign Ordinance, Title 10, Chapter 3, Section 9, Subdivision Ej copy of proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment, Title 10, Chapter 3, Section 9, Subdivision E, p3, Conditional Uses with reference to #1 Option A and 02 Option B. - 10-3-9 10-3-9 tising device legal under Laws 1971, Chapter 803, shall be required to be removed or relocated until payment, as provided in Iaws 1971, Chapter 883, is tendered by the City of Monticello. (1/26/81 490) (D) NON -CONFORMING SIGNSs 1. The following are non -conforming siona. (a) Off-promine signs (exceptions signs located inside ball parks and on bus benches). (b) Prohibited signs. (c) All other signs not prohibited that do not conform to the provisions of thio subdivision. 2. A non -conforming sign may not bei (a) Changed to another non -conforming sign. (b) Structurally altered except to bring into com- plianco with the provisions of thin subdivision. (c) Expanded. (d) Re-cotablishod after its removal for thirty (30) days. (e) Re-established after damage or more than fifty (50) percent of sign replacement cost except to bring into compliance. 3. All non -conforming and prohibited signs shall be removed or brought into conformity with this Ordinance after notification in writing within the following time period. (a) Any sign in violation of prohibited uignas Thirty (30) days (exceptions Advertising signs, five (5) years). (b) For all other non -conforming signs: five (5) years. (E) DISTRICT RMUTATIONS. l l� The following sections concern signs which require application and permit. O1. within the A-0. R-1, R-2, R-3, and R -C districts, signs ars subject to the following site and type ragulationas 10-3-9 10-3-9 (a) Institutional or area identification signs, provided that the gross square footage of sign area does not exceed eighteen (18) square feet and if the sign is freestanding, the height does not exceed eight (8) feet. 2. Within the R -B, B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, 1-1 and I-2 Districts, signs are subject to the following size and type regulations: (a) Within the R -B and B-1 Districts, the maximum allowable square footage of sign area per lot shall not exceed the sum of one (1) square foot per front foot of the building plus one (1) square foot for each front foot of lot not occupied by a building, up to one hundred (100) square feet. Each lot will be allowed one (1) pylon or freestanding sign and one (1) wall sign or two (2) wall signs total. (b) Within the B-2, B-3, B-4, 1-1 and 1-2 Districts, there shall be two (2) options for permitted signs. The property owner shall select one option which shall control sign size on each lot (1) Option A. Under Option A, only wall signs shall be allowed. The maximum number of signs on any principal building shall be six signs (four product identification signs and two premise identification signs), with only two walls allowed for the display of the signs. Each wall ahall contain no more than two product identification signs and one premise identification sign. The total maximum size of wall signs shall be determined by taking twenty percent (20X) of the groom silhouette area of the front of the build- ing, up to three hundred (300) square feet, which is leas. If a principal building is on a corner lot, the largestside of the building may be used to determine the gross silhouette area. For purposes of determining the gross area of the silhouette of the principal building, the silhouette shall be defined as that area within an outline drawing of the principal building as viewed from the front lot line or from the related public street(s). (2/26/79 064) (2) Option B. Under Option B, either wall signs or pylon signs may be utilized, or a combination of both. In no case, however, shall mora than one pylon sign be allowed. Only two product identi- fication signs and one premise identification sign is allowed and these wall signs must be only on one separate wall. The total maxi- mum allowable sign area for any wall shall be, determined by taking ten percent (10%) of the groes silhouette arca of the front of the building, up to one hundred (100) square feet, whichever is less. The method for determiniag the gross silhouette area for wall signs is as indicated in Option A. (2/26/19 064) (3) Conditional Uses: In the came of a building where there are two (2) or more business uses, a Conditional Use Permit sLell be granted to the entire building in accordance to an overall site plan indicating their size, location, and height of all signs presented to the planning Commission. A maximum of five - percent (SX) of the gross area of the front silhouette shall apply to the principal buildint where the aggregate allowable sign area is equit ly distributed .ingot the several businesses. In the case of C07 10-3-9 10-3-9 --> applying this conditional use permit to a building, the -�f building may have one (1) pylon or freestanding sign ident- ifying the building which is in conformance with this Or- dinance. C� ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Zoning Ordinance - Title 10, Chapter 3, Section 9, Subdivision E (2) (b) (3) Signs - Conditional Uses (3) Conditional Uses: (a) In the case of a building where there are three (3) or more business uses, but which, by generally understood and accepted definitions, is not considered a shopping center or shopping mall, a Conditional Use shall be granted to the entire building in accordance with an overall site plan under the provisions of Option A or Option B (described in the two preceding sections) provided that: (i.) The owner of the building files with the Zoning Administrator a detailed plan for signing illustrating location, sizo in square feet, size in percent of gross silhouette area, and to which business said sign is dedicatodi (ii) No tenant shall be allowed more than one sign, except that in the case of a building that is situated in the interior of a block and having another building on each side of it, one sign shall be allowed on the front and one sign shall be allowed on the roar provided that the total square footage of the two signs dean not exceed the maximum allowable square footage wider Option A or Option D. (iii) No sign shall exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of the total allowable sign area. (iv) An applicant desiring any alteration of aigns, sign location, sign size, or number of signs shall first submit an appli- cation to the Zoning Administrator for an amended sign plan, said application to be reviewed and acted upon by the 'Luning AdminiaLrator within Lon (10) days of application. if the application is denied by the Zoning Administrator, the applicant may go before the Planning Commission at their next regular scheduled meeting. (v) In the event that one tenant of the building does not utilize the full allotment of allowable area, the excess may not be granted, traded, sold or in any other way trans- forrod to another tenant for the purpose of allowing a sign larger than twenty-fivo percent (25%) of the total allowable area for signs. Zoning Ordinance Amendment Zoning Ordinance - Title 10, Chapter 3, Section 9, Subdivision E (2) (b) (3) (vi) Any building identification sign or building directory sign shall be included in the total allowable area for signs. (vii) Any sign that. is shared by or is a combination of two or more tenants shall to considered as separate signs and shall meet the requirements thereof. (viii) All signs shall be aesthetically comparahle in design, color, materials, shape and ill=ination. (b) In the case of a building where there are two (2) or more uses, and which, by generally understood and accepted definitions, is considered to be a shopping center or shopping mall, a Conditional Use Permit shall be granted to the entire building in accordance to an overall site plan indicating their size, location, and height of all signs presented to the Planning Commission. A maximum of five percent (56) of the gross area of the front silhouette shall apply to the principal building whore the aggregate allowable sign area is equitably distributed amongst the several businesses. In the case of applying this conditional use permit to a building, the building may have one (1) pylon or freestanding sign identifying the building which is in conformance with this ordinance. 2 U Council Agenda - 3/12/84 7. Meadow Oak EIS Scoping Meeting. (T.E.) A. REFERE14CE AND BACKGROUND: The public comment period on the Meadow Oak Environmental Assessment Worksheet closed on February 29. Under the rules of the Environmental Quality Board, the City Council (as the responsible governmental unit) is supposed to consider all comment received during the comment period, and then determine the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement that is required by the Environmental Quality Board. In order to avoid having to do an Environmental Impact Statement, the Meadow Oak developers have submitted a statement saying that they will reduce the size of their project so that they come in under the threshold for a mandatory Environmental Impact Statement. Hence, the City Council does not have to make a decision this Monday night determining the scope of a prwpwseu Eslvi—u--Lai iwi.acL ��... ....:.....-W...t , Cz cpors . . . v paepare a revised Environmental Assessment Workshoet addressing the same issues but under the provisions of the proposed project size. This new Environmental Assessment Worksheet will again have to be opened for public comment. At the end of the aomment period the new Environmental Assessment Worksheet and all coupen to will come back to the Council for a determination as to whether or not the developer must prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. If at that time all technical data is clearly indisputable and answers all of the environmental questions that need to be answered, then the Council may determine that an Environmental Impact Statement is not necessary and that the project may proceed. A reprosentaLiva of Ultra Ilomes will be present at the meeting Monday night. D. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Thoro is no action required of the City Council at this time. The item is on the agenda solely as an update and information item. Further, the dovolopera wish to ralay to the Council what their proponed plans are. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONi None. D. SUPPORTING DATA: All eommonts colloctud during the public comment period, latter from Ultra Homes. - 8 - rVAra qfo »>es, 13ne. "Tomorrow's Homes Today" March 5, 1964 Mr. Tom Elden City Manager City of Monticello Subjecti Meadow Oak EIS Dear Mr. Eidens On behalf of Mr. James Boyle, fee owner, and Ultra Homes, Inc., developer and owner of Meadow Oak Estates and Meadow Oak 2nd Addition, we request the following modification to our development plan. Reduction of the number of unite by 66, this would take the development out of the mandatory E. I. S. category. In our opinion, it is in the boat interest for all concerned not to be tied up by the long E.I.S. process. A representative of Ultra Homes, Inc. will be present at the March 12th council meeting to discuea this matter in detail. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, ULTRA HOM, INC. X 44-� Dickman C. Knutson President n Jams T. Boyle Pee Owner, Meadow Oak { 3030 Harbor Lane 0 1'/ynre k AIN 55441 • 612.559.7703 Council Agenda - 3/12/84 B. Consideration of Waivinq the Fee for a Liquor License on a Proposed Project. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Several weeks ago Stuart Hoglund came in to see about applying for a liquor license for his proposed motel project. He indicated that he wanted to be sure he could get a liquor license before he got into plans and specs and construction of such a project. I informed him at that time that the ordinance requires that the license fee be submitted at the time of application. Further, I stated that if he wished to withhold his application until he got further down the line, he simply would not have to submit the iices ­ iuv -L11 _m.,.. .._ ^h^ t m^ of his intitial inquiry, if he were required to pay the fee on the pro rata basis, he would be required to submit $1,650.00 for the last half of this license year. In addition, lie would then be required to submit 53,300.u0 for the licunse runewal and his building would not even yet be fully erected nor drinks able to be sold. At the meeting the night that Floyd Kruse was issued his on -sale wine license, he indicated that he intended to return to the ODuncil later in the spring to apply for a liquor license. Shortly after that meeting I called Stuart to inform him that anuther person had expressed interest in a liquor licanso,and 1 didn't want him to think that I had talked him into delaying his application so that someone else could make application. As a result, Stuart came in and made application and put a check for $1,650.00 on deposit with me. I indicated to him at that time that I would take the qucution of one extra liquor licenso to the Council on March 12. Since that discussion I have checked with the State Liquor Control Commission and diucoverad that we aro able to iosuo two more liquor liCenoea on the basis that the Wayside Inn liquor license existed prior to annexation. Thun for our population size, we are allowed to issue five licenses, plus be able to issue the license for any establishments that were annexed into the City. That makes a total of six licenses available to the City. We have currently issued four. Tlmu, the question of first come, first served, is suddenly no longer relevant. lbw over, because Stuart cannot got into operation until fall, he is requesting that the fee for the last two quarters of this lieenso year be waived. lie will gladly pay the $3,300.00 license fee that Is due on July 1 whether in operation or not. I think hrs requost to reasonable insofar as tin wants to design and build a liquor lounge and,an ouch, would like to guarantee receipt of the license prior to construction commitmonta. This is not an uncommon practice. Council Agenda - 3/12/84 B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Do not waive the license fee for the remainder of this license year - this would mean that Mr. Hoglund is paying $1,650.00 for the right to hold a license but will not have a facility from which he can sell. 2. Waive the license fee for the balance of this license year. Even if final approval is granted to Mr. Hoglund to have a license, the City would not collect its first license fee until July 1, that sum being $3,300.00. 3. Waive the fee, but hold the check as an earnest money check. r.c.. license W„ptA rhon he issued July 1 with the full annual fee due and payable at that time. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Regardless of the alternative you may select, we will still be required to hold a public hearing and take official action on whether or not a liquor license will be granted to the applicant. Because Mr. Hoglund will not have a facility wherein he can conduct the business for which he is being licensed, I see no real need to insist upon payment of the license fee. I think it would be appropriate to either totally waive the foe and process the / application under our normal procedures, or simply hold his current check for the balance of this year and return it to him upon the issuance of the new license. D. SUPPORTING DATA: There le no supporting data for this item. - 10 - C