City Council Agenda Packet 06-14-1993AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Monday, Jane 14,1993 -7 p.m.
Mayor: Ken Maus
Council Members: Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst, Brad Fyle, Patty Olsen
1. Call to order.
2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held May 24, 1993.
3. Citizens commentalpetitions, requests, and complaints.
4. Public Hearing --Consideration of a resolution vacating a portion of Hart
Boulevard. Petitioner, Monticello -Big Lake Hospital District.
6. Consideration of accepting the 1992 Audit Report for the City of Monticello.
6. Consideration of amendments to the zoning map of Monticello proposed in
conjunction with development of the Monticello Commerce Center. Applicant,
Monticello Industrial Park, Inc.
7. Consideration of amendments to the City of Monticello Comprehensive Land
Use Plan. Amendments are proposed in conjunction with the request for
zoning district boundary changes. Applicant, Monticello Industrial Park, Inc.
8. Consideration of a zoning ordinance amendment which would allow a permit
for promotional signagelbanner for two weeks out of every month or a total of
168 days a year. Applicant, 9 local businesses.
9. Consideration of a zoning ordinance amendment that would allow for an
annual permit fee of $26 to cover permitting costs associated with promotional
signage fees. Applicant, 9 local businesses.
10. Consideration of authorizing installation of electronic scoreboards at NSP
ballfields along with associated vendor and Baseball Association agreements.
11. Consideration of authorizing debris removal and site investigation of the
former Gille property --West County Road 75.
12. Consideration of gambling license renewal --VFW Post 8731.
13. Consideration of having tongue and groove paneling professionally installed in
the now West Bridge Park warming housc/restroom building.
0 14. Consideration of a petition for extension of conditional use permit allowing a
public works building in a KA zone. Applicant, City of Monticello.
16. Adjournment.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, May 24, 1993 - 7 p.m.
Members Present: Ker. Maus, Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst, Brad Fyle, Patty
Olsen
Members Absent: None
2. Consideration of approval of minutes of the reeular meetine held Mav 10.
1993, and special meetine held Mav 18. 1993.
Shirley Anderson suggested that the Council minutes be amended by changing
#2 of agenda item N4 as follows: "Elderly and handicapped are major users of
medical clinic facilities. Without the driveway and canopy, accessibility for
handicapped and elderly is difficult and, therefore, the variances are necessary
to provide a reasonable use of the property." Aller discussion, a motion was
made by Brad Fyle and seconded by Shirley Anderson to approve said meeting
minutes as corrected. Motion carried unanimously.
3. Comments. oetitions, requests, and comolaints.
Roger Ptibyl, representing the Monticello Baseball Association, requested that.
the City allow installation of advertising signs at the NSP softball fields,
revenue from which would he used for purchase and instillation of electronic
scoreboard signs at each of the four fields.
Brad Fyle wondered if allowing advertising signs would result in proliferation
of signs at the ballpark. He stated that there should I- some control of private
advertising at a public park. Wolfsteller noted that issues relating to
installation, maintenance, hooking up and wiring, etc., need to he resolved and
included in an agreement between the Baseball Association and the City.
Clint Herbst indicated that he supports allowing a 2 -ft high advertising sign
located directly below the scorehMard. Patty Olsen agreed with Clint Herbst
that a modest sign of a size consistent with the scoreboard would he
acceptable.
After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson W allow the
installation of a sign advertising a private business. Motion died for lack of a
second.
After further discussion, a motion was made by Brod �yle-and seconded by
Patty Olsen to refer the matter W the Parks Commission. Parks Commission
is asked to review issues relating to placement ofoff•premise advertising signs
at the NSP hallfields. Voting in favor: Ken Maus, Shirley Anderson, Patty
Olsen, Clint Herbst. Opposed: Brad Fyle.
Page 1 O
Council Minutes - 5/24/93
Pribyl requested immediate action by Council to allow advertising at the
primary ballfield and associated scoreboard. Pribyl was concerned that
delaying a decision would delay installation of the scoreboard until much of the
season is completed. In response, Council went on to review in more detail the
possibility of allowing installation of one scoreboard funded by advertising
display at the field used primarily for baseball.
After discussion, a motion was made by Brad Fyle and seconded by Shirley
Anderson to allow installation of a 14 ft by 5 fl scoreboard to be installed by
the Monticello Baseball Association at no cost to the City at the field used
primarily for baseball. Furthermore, staff is directed to prepare an agreement
between the City and the Association regarding the conditions under which
advertising signs can be installed, agreement to include detail expectations
with regard to the size of the signs, sign location, sign maintenance, etc.
Motion carried unanimously.
4. Update by City Assessor on local board of review adjustments.
Jerry Kramber was in attendance to update the Council on action taken in
regard to reducing market values of parcels in question.
After discussion, a motion was made by Brad Fyle and seconded by Shirley
Anderson to accept the changes and recommendations made by the County
Assessor. Motion carried unanimously.
Consideration of authorizing City Planner to prepare a long:- term plan for
Hospital District. area.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill stated that as a condition of approval of the
clinic expansion, the hospital district was requested to work with the City to
design a long; -term land use plan that serves the needs of the hospital district
while being sensitive to nearby residential neighborhood concerns. On
April 12, 1993, it was the consensus of Council to authorize City stuff and
consulting planner to work with the hospital district toward creating a
development plan for the area.
After reviewing the matter with the planner, it became evident that to do a
thorough study of the issues would require a significant invesUnent of time by
City staff and City Planner Mi, 100). City staff is concerned that the direction
of the meeting of April 12 did not take into consideration the cost associated
with the in-depth study that would be required to answer the many questions
relating; to long -tern development at this site. Therefore, City staff requests
that Council again review the direction provided to staff at the meeting on the
12th and determine if Council was comfortable with spending x,3,100 to
prepare a long-term plan for the site.
Page 2 9
Council Minutes - 5/24/93
Brad Fyle noted that he supports the concept of completing the study and that
it is in the hest interest of the City to work cooperatively with the hospital
district in preparing the study and defining issues and solutions; however, the
City should be the party responsible for paying for the study. Paying for the
study in its entirety will give the City the proper level of independence it needs
to prepare plans that are in the best interest of the city.
Patty Olsen noted that the plan prepared will benefit the hospital district by
providing direction necessary to plan for future development and will give the
hospital district a better understanding of the best way to configure their site,
including building and parking layouts. It was Olsen's opinion that the
hospital district should contribute toward funding the project because it will
provide a direct benefit to them.
After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by
Patty Olsen to allocate one-half of the funds necessary to complete the study
contingent upon the hospital district agreeing to pay for the other half. Voting
in favor of the motion: Ken Maus. Shirley Anderson, Patty Olsen, Clint
Herbst. Opposed: Brad Fyle.
Review of schematic design and oreliminary const.niction cost estimates for
chase II of the Monticello Public Works Facilit.v.
Mr. Doug Wild, architect for the City's engineering firm. OSM, reviewed with
the Council the schematic design for phase II expansion of the public works
facility. Mr. Wild noted that phase II could he, hroken down into three phases
consisting of a Rand and salt enclosure at a cost of approximately $108,000; a
wash and paint hay at a cost of $110,f O0 and an addition to the present
building to include handicapped accessible entry, restrooms, break room, along
with a meeting and training room for approximately $126,000. The total of all
three portions of phase Il, with it contingency and engineering fees included,
could total $41:1,000.
After reviewing the three phases, Public Works Director, .John Simola,
reviewed with the Council the need for the improvements such as it covered
facility for storage of sand and salt to avoid any possible ground contamination
along with the need for a separate wash bay facility for cleaning vehicles to
avoid moisture problems in existing buildings.
Councilmember Herbst questioned the need for skylights Ui be included in the
existing building and in the salt and sand enclosure and the need for showers
as part of the maintenance building facility. In addition, Mr. Herbst noted the
City will have to address more pressing financial needs at the wastewater
treatmentplant prior to considering expenditures for additional public works
facilities.
Page :1 9
Council Minutes - 5/24/93
Mayor Maus and Councilmember Fyle also questioned the size of the proposed
salt/sand shed facility and questioned whether the facility could be downsized
to control costs.
The Public Works Director noted that the Council was only reviewing a
schematic design, and construction was not proposed at this time until at least
1994 or later. To consider construction next year, additional design work
should be commenced this fall to ensure a sufficient lead time for next year's
construction.
After further review and discussion, a motion was made by Clint Herbst,
seconded by Brad Fyle, and unanimously carried to accept the preliminary
report on phase II as provided but to table any action on proceeding with
further design until such time as the entire financial cost of repairs at our
wastewater treatment plant is determined.
Consideration of authorizing a facility survev and evaluation of all public
buildings for determiningeornOiance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The City Council was informed that the recently -adopted Americans with
Disabilities Act extended civil rights protection to the disabled and requires
public entities to review till of their existing buildings and programs along with
services they provide to ensure that all facilities and programs are accessible
by the handicapped.
City Council reviewed it proposal by City Engineer, OSM, to conduct a facility
survey of all City buildings which would outline any accessibility problems and
corrective action that would be necessary. Mr. Doug Wild of OSM estimated
that it complete survey and evaluation of eight buildings and park facilities
could cost between $8,000 and $9,000 for the entire study.
Councilmember Herhstquestioned whetherthe City's Building Inspector along
with City staff couldn't accomplish a survey on their own and suggested that
the Building Inspector review the new law to detern-tine if present staff has the
time and expertise to accomplish the evaluation.
As a result, it motion was made by Clint Herbst, seconded by Shirley Anderson,
and unanimously carried to have the Building Inspector review the Americans
with Disabilities Act to determine if City staff hos the, capability of completing
its own evaluation study.
Page 4 0
Council Minutes - 5/24/93
Consideration of bids and awarding of sealcoating oroiect.
The City of Monticello received four bids for completing a 66,000 sq yd
sealcoating project on city streets on Friday, May 21, 1993. The bids ranged
in price from $34,000.30 to $37,301.30.
A motion was made by Shirley Anderson, seconded by Patty Olsen, and
unanimously carried to award the 1993 sealcoating project to Astech
Corporation of St. Cloud, Minnesota, as the low bidder in the amount of $.515
per square yard, or $34,000.30 for the estimated 66,000 sq yd project.
9. Consideration of replacing two waste -activated sludge pumps at the
wastewater treatment plant.
A motion was made by Shirley Anderson, seconded by Clint Herbst, and
unanimously carried to approve the replacement of two waste -activated sludge
pumps at the wastewater treatment plant at an estimated cost of $18,000. The
proposed replacement pumps were recommended by the City staff and PSC,
Inc., the City's contract operator of the wastewater treatment plant.
10. Aooroval of hills.
A motion was made by Brad Fyle, seconded by Shirley Anderson, and
unanimously carried to approve the bills for the month of May as presented.
Rick Wolfsteller Jeff O'Neill
City Administrator Assistant Administrator
Page 5 9
Council Agenda - 6/14/93
4. Public Hen rina-Consideration of a resolution vacating a portion of
Hart Boulevard. Petitioner. Monticello-Bia Lake Hospital District.
W .O.t
A. Hh ERENCE AND IiACKGROUND
At the Council meeting on May 10, 1993. City Council gave conceptual
approval of vacating a 5 -ft X 145-f1 section of Hart Ioulevard (mated directly
in front (of the existing clinic and proposed clinic expansion area. The vacated
portion of Hart lioulevard, when added to the clinic site, would enable
development of a 24 -ft wide driving aisle serving the front entrance to the
clinic. Council is now asked to consider grunting furnial approval of the
vacation through adoption of the attached resolution. The resolution also
identifies the price paid by the hospital district to the City in exchange for the
vacated area. As you will note, this dolhrr amount is left blank and should he
Filled in by the Council at the time the resolution is adopted.
Foraddilional information, I have attached a letter from I'aul Weingnrden I.hnt
details his research us to whether or not the City owns its roads. To
surnmari•re, the City does own the roads that were originally platted in 1856;
however, the City (owns the roads in trust., which means that I,he laity should
conduct the stauadard vacation Process in cunjUnction with selling all or purls
of areas designated us roadways.
Council is asked to determine what to charge the hospital district for the
vacated land. As it starting point„ perhaps the laity should charge an amount
equal to what the hospital district was asking when it was considering selling
the site that is now living proposed for clinic expansion. I have leen informed
by liarh Schwientek that the selling price of the clinic site was $42,IM10 or $.67
per fool. This cost, when applied to the proposed area For vacation, results in
n cost of $486. 1 have discussed this mutter with Barb Schwienlek of the
hospital district, and she has indicated 1hat. she supports purchasing the
vacated properly al the requested price.
( )f course, (City Council can determine that providing this land to the hospital
district serves the public interest by providing bind necessary to complete the
necessury improvement to the fucilil;v. It could he argued, therefore, phut, there
hhoUld 1w no charge for this expense.
Council Agenda • 6/14/93
B. ALTERNATIVE. ACTIONS:
1. Motion to adopt a resolution vacating a portion of Hart Boulevard.
Under this alternative, Council is comfortable in following through with
its previous conceptual approval of vacating a portion of Hart Boulevard.
This motion should include the price of the vacated land as determined
by Council. Under this alternative, City staff will prepare a deed and
administer its transfer to the hospital district. S� "-/ Ch (W
2. Motion to deny adoption of a resolution vacating a portion of Hart
Boulevard.
Council should select this alternative if it no longer feels that it is
proper to vacate a portion of Hart Boulevard at this location.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends alternative NI.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Map showing vacated area; Letter from Paul Weingarden regarding street
ownership issue; Resolution vacating it portion of Hart Boulevard.
-- L-- .M CCN.ICRETE WALK. k -
IF
MC SIaN TYR. SEE 6/ ` T v
g n
--� EKISTwG AC J 930 n 9th + r N
3
EX':-p;z93�
OrYGFN •aN
m 1
EXISTING9. , EXISTING �3P_ __Pp.DPOSED' °-
aOwER9DX CLINIC BUILDING 931 ADDITION
N A L s
-- LOWER LEVEL ELEV. 924.3
MAIN LEVEL ELEV. 935.0
ry �.
NI
REMOVE :MSTING S ,
'yam TREES AND SMNU9S
00 a A6
IF NECCESSARY
FOR NfW WALKWAY \ NO WALl;WA` NCr CON4 TE WALK 931.7 j 1 ` \92%!
r- ----- - ''zAJ .► `.° I - T o
U n - - NEW ��
LI °11 ENTRAN:E j
N DRIVE NAY I ") I CANOFI )b t1.1
11 ll� _ \.
go p
STOP VGN SEE
fIEPS G 2S
T
_ + �`�- 3.
RELOCATE EXISTING TREES jip
FROM FAONT OF A RELOCATED
ISTMG CLINIC //! UTILITY
HART BOULEVARD „: POLE
EXISTING 9" t `
$CNI'Ahv $EWES !!
OLSON, USSET, AGAN & WEINGARDEN
ATfOI.YBY! AT LAW
PAUL A-PlMOA"DEY•
CHARIM T. AOAN
D,'.= :. '.=.
THOMAS !. OL30M
DfNNI! E DALEN
MAIWQlR8 A MATFLE
--Nd RW ►RTAS sPs"6"
olnFneNo. 7975 (41)
Honorable Mayor and
Members of City Council
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MH 55362
SORB X0
60m FRANC$ AY6 UH SOUTH
LEGAL AsstvAwm
.Xv, VOIa- MM DAu
P®OY J. AOAN
TELEPHONM 161M 9 --AM
DEUA L LAI=
FAx .alm 6Ism
PATSY A FORELAND
@6 PO TN
sommm TYONNm
May 26, 1993 TH9J110NF1161Z m -MM
Re: Vacation of Hart Boulevard issue
Dear Mayor and Members of Council:
At the direction of the Council and City Staff, I
recently undertook the legal research necessary in order to
determine the question of whether or not the City of Monticello
owns its roads. My investigative search involved reviewing
records in the office of the Wright County Recorder and documents
maintained in the State law library in St. Paul, Minnesota.
From my review of the same, I discovered an unusual
occurrence. Since all land in the State was originally owned by
the United States of America, prudent real estate practice
dictates that one of the first entries in any abstract of title
is a patent from the United States of America to the earliest
landholder.
In my review of the original patents for the Town of
Monticello, I was surprised to see that instead of a patent
running from the United States to a private individual, much of
the land which comprises the City of Monticello was conveyed
directly to the "Town of Monticello", more specifically, to the
corporate authorities of the Town of Monticello "in trust for the
several uses and benefits of the occupants thereof according to
their respective interests under the Town Site Act of Congress
approved May 23, 1844 and entitled an Act for the relief of the
citizens of towns upon the land of the United States under
certain circumstances in whose favor said tract has been
located."
It appears the purpose of this law was to deed property
directly to public authorities in those locales which were
already settled where it would be cumbersome to issue individual
patents. In this manner, the United States delegated the
responsibility of conveying the property to the appropriate
settler to township officials.
May 26, 1993
Page 2
After the patent to the Town of Monticello, a power of
attorney was granted by the town to James F. Bradley.
Thereafter, Mr. Bradley, on behalf of himself and as an agent for
the Town of Monticello, platted large portions of the City of
Monticello and lover Monticello for the "uses and purposes
mentioned in the statutes of this Territory in such cases made
and provided."
The plats of the original City of Monticello include
subdivided tracts which have since been conveyed to individual
owners, and areas defined as streets which have not. It is my
opinion, therefore, that the legal status of the streets is that
the City owns them in trust for the use of its citizens. As
such, it would be necessary to perform a vacation in the event a
City desired to change the public character of a platted street.
Once the vacation is accomplished, however, title to the property
would revert to the original owner and its successor, the
corporation known as the City of Monticello.
In summary, I find that there is credible and
compelling evidence that you do in fact "own" your streets,
although held in trust for the use and benefit of the occupants.
If the City should determine that it is no longer in the public
interest to hold the street in trust for the public, it may
vacate the same in accordance with our statutes. After vacation,
the City would own the street and could dispose of it as any
other City property, either by sale, gift or otherwise.
If you have questions regarding the within, feel free
to contact me at your convenience to discuss this matter.
Very truly yours,
P ul A. W ingarda
PAW:lld
RESOLUTION 93 -
RESOLUTION FOR VACATING A PORTION OF HART BOULEVARD
WHEREAS, a majority of the owners of property abutting Hart Boulevard adjacent
to that portion of Hart Boulevard described in the attached legal description have
requested the City Council in a petition dated May 10, 1993, to vacate a portion of
such street according to law;
AND WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on June 14, 1993, before the City Council
in the city hall on such petition after due published and posted notice had been given,
as well as personal notice to affected property owners, and all persons interested were
given an opportunity to be heard.
AND ��(p�7HEREAS, the abutting property owner has agreed to pay the City
Y
$ V -D in exchange for the vacated land;
AND WHEREAS, it appears that it will he in the best interest of the city to approve
such petition;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOI,VED, that such petition is hereby granted and
part of the street described as follows is hereby vacated:*
Adopted by the Council this 14th day of June, 1993.
Mayor
City Administrator
* Precise legal description is being prepared by OSM and is not available at this time.
Council Agenda - 6/14/9:4
s. Consideration of acceotinu the 1992 Audit Report for the City of
Monticello. 1 K. W. )
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Hick lit,rden and Mr. Kim Lillehaug of Gruys, Burden, Carlson &
Associates will be present at the meeting to present a brief overview of the
1992 Audit Report recently completed by their firm.
A copy of the report has been previously delivered or included with this agenda
to each Council member for your review. 1 realize that this lengthy report is
hard for the Council to review and analyze in such a short period of time, but
the report should he accepted by the Council prior to the end of.lune, as it is
to he suhmilled to the State Auditor by,hme :10, 1W3.
Aller the presentation of the report by Mr. Burden, if the Council feels that
they would like addil.ional time to review the report., this item can again he
scheduled as it future Council nuarl.ing for additional review.
Should tiny of you have any specific quesLions regarding the information
presented in the audit report, you may conLact me prior to Monday night's
meeting or you may wish to speak to Mr. Kim Lillehaug with Gruys, Borden,
Carlson, and we will try to answer any questions you ma,y have. After review
Monday evening, Mr. Lillehaug is available for questions by the Council simply
by calling him litr an appwintinont.
Generally speaking, I believe the City is in fai rlv good financial condition, and
1992 saw increases in our fund balances in almost all funds at year-end.
Increases i it fund balances are additional surpluses that have accumulaled and
result from revenues exceeding expenditures in it given year. As I indicated,
Mr. (tick Burden will briefly review the financial condition of the Cily and
highlight a►ny significant points during his presentwinn.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
The only action necessary by the Council is to accept the 1992 Audit Report as
presented so that it may Ix submitted to the Slate Auditor by the required
.lune :10 deadline.—i 444C
1)sn
I1 SltPHIRT1W DATA:
Copy of 1992 Audit Report if not previously delivered separately.
Council Agenda - 6/14/93
6. Consideration of amendments to the zoning map of Monticello
proposed in coniunction with development of the Monticello
Commerce Center. Applicant. Monticello Industrial Park. Inc. AND
7. Consideration of amendments to the City of Monticello Comprehensive
Land Use Plan. Amendments are proposed in conjunction with the
request for zoning district houndary changes. Applicant, Monticello
Industrial Park. Inc. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
City Council is asked to consider proposed amendments to the zoning map
which lire proposed in conjunction with development of the Monticello
Commerce Center. Charles Pfeffer, representing Monticello Industrial Park,
Inc., and his consulting planner, Mike Gair, will he in attendance to present
their rezoning proposal. Steve Grittman of Northwest Associated Consultants
will also he in attendance to provide pros and cons associated with the
proposal.
Please review hoth the developer's detailed request and the City Planner's
response.
It. ALTERNATIVE AG71t1NS:
Alternative actions can also 1w found on page 5 of the I'lanner's report.. They
lire its follows:
Motion to deny the rezoning proposal in its entirety based on the issues
identified in the City 1'lunner's report.
M-Ption to approve the rezoning request, in its entirety based on the
applicant's proposal.
.1. Motion to approve it portion of the rezoning request by permitting
flexibility by allowing limited alterations to the adopted land use plan
in one or Iwlh of the following areas:
A. Allow opportunity for Iight industrial development fronting Fallon
Avenue between the schoNA district prolwily and Chelsea Road.
Council Agenda - 8/14/93
13. Allow opportunity fur relocation of R -'l connnercinl osec in one ur
nutrequadrantsoftheCuuntylioad 118/1-94 intersection provided
the same arca is maintained as that approved as part of the
adopted plan.
It was the view ofthe Planning Commission that it would he acceptable
to allow opportunity for lighl industrial development east of Fallon
Avenue and directly north of the school property. It was recommended
by the Planning Commission Ihat the I-1/RC Noundary he drawn 900
feet east of Fallon Avenue. This would create enough land arca for two
tiers of I -I lots cast of Fallon.
With regard to the amendments to [lie comprehensive. plan, City staff
hits not prepared amendments to the comprehensive plan at this point.
in lime. If the developer's proposal is approved, then star will make
revisions to the comprehensive plan its necessary for approval at at
subsequent meeting.
C. STAFF HFCl)MMEN1)AmoN
Compelling arguments are made by the develolxr which would allow greater
flexihilit.y in marketing of his property by providing n wider array of types of
hind uses that would he allowed in the area. ()it the other hand, the City
Planner has presented reasons \vhv the proposed amendments and developer
goals for the properly mm
are nut asistcnt with the comprehensive plan for the
area or beneficial to the city as a whole.
All in all, it is our view that the reasons supporting deniid of the request
outweigh the positive factors defined by the applimia. We do, however,
support the concept of alluwirtg the opportunity fur greater flexibility by
allowing limiled alterations In Lheaelopled land use plan and by allowing light
industrial development fronting Fatllon Avenue hetwecn the school district
property and Chelsea (toad. We Imlieve it is in the Inst interest of the city to
draw the BC/1.1 boundary line 250 Icel to 400 feet oast of Fallon. Light
industrial 11.11 fronting Fallon should he limited In one tier of lots having
direct access to Fallon Avenue. This would allow 1.1/I1C transition lit occur
along the rear lot lines. The I- 1 rune provided would hecorne it transition zone
acid not it separate 1.1 neighlxorhtmd developed al the expense of the BC
neighborhood.
Although the applicant his nut made the request, perhaps the City could
consider reducing the ;1114 green space requirement in the RC district, which
would have the effect of making the BC districtmore like the I- I district. The
Council Agenda - 6/14/93
green space requirement was included in the 13C carnpus to contribute tmvard
a "campus" atmosphere. The City of Buffalo has the same requirement in their
BC zone. The green space requirement's in the 1-1 district amounts to 15'4 of
the developed area. Action on this concept should he limited to calling for a
public hearing and directing staff to prepare a zoning ordinance amendment
accordingly.
Finally, the Industrial Development Committee has reviewed the zoning
ordinance proposal and recommended allowing IA zoning east of Fallon
Avenue. No recommendation was made on the precise location of the 1-1/13C
boundary.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Notice of public hearing showing areas proposed for rezoning; Monticello
Commerce Center zoning change request as submitted by Michael Gair
( Developer's Report); City Planner's report; Map showing Planning Commission
rezoning recommendation; Map showing proposed changes to comprehensive
land use plan necessary to allow proposed business district related rezoning;
Zoning district description chart -41-2, 11-;1, BC, and 1-1; Assorted meeting
minutes pertaining to previous land use decisions. A copy of the Chelsea Area
Land Use and Circulation Study was provided at the special meeting 6/10/92
and should be reviewed at your discretion.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that public hearings will be held by the City of
Monticello Planning Commission on May a , 19 93 , at
7 p.m., in the Monticello City Hall to consider the following matters:
PUBLIC HF.ARING: Consideration of amendments to the zoning map of Monticello proposed
in conjunction with development of the Monticello Commerce Center,
proposed zoning district boundary changes are located on map
below.
APPLICANT: Monticello Industrial Park, Inc.
I PROPOSED 20NINC DISTRICT BOUNDARY, CHANGES
FS
APPLICANT: MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL PARR, INC.
Ell
R 1,-
a\ From B-: to 8-7 I°I
Yrom BC to Il �
From K -PUD to B-] j� E
i From 0. -PUD to B-2
1 I ADOL DISTRZCS 882 #- \
Ri"'-
Written and oral teatimony will be accepted on above subjects, and all
persons desiring to be hoard on roferencod subjocto 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 hoard on
Monday, MAV io 19 97 , at 7 p.m., at the
Monticello City Hall.
Gari Andorson, Toning Aim niotrator
LEY
'.-:.z -til_.-
- R -PUD:
B -2:
B-7:
BC:
I1:
Rea idential Planned
Limited Buainass
Highway Business
Buo into Cams
Light laduatripua1
Unit Development -
y
\� `
Written and oral teatimony will be accepted on above subjects, and all
persons desiring to be hoard on roferencod subjocto 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 hoard on
Monday, MAV io 19 97 , at 7 p.m., at the
Monticello City Hall.
Gari Andorson, Toning Aim niotrator
DOvClara's �*rvv f
McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc.
15050 23ya Avenue North. Plymouth. Minnesota 55447 Teieonone Engineers
612/476.6010 Planners
612/476-e502 FAX Surveyors
April 19, 1993
Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator
and Community Development
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
Monticello, Minnesota 55362-9245
SUBJECT: Monticello Commerce Center
Zoning Change Request
MFRA #10191
Dear Mr. O'Neill:
With this letter, we are transmitting an application. filing fee and
exhibits in support of our Client's (Monticello Industrial Park. Inc.) request
to rezone portions of its property.
Taylor Land Surveyors, Inc. of Monticello has prepared a boundary survey
and a property description for the 150.9 acres. A copy of the Taylor Survey
accompanies the application.
In prior meetings with yourself, other members of the City staff, and a
meeting with the Industrial Development Commission on 04/15/93. Charlie
Pfeffer, Pfeffer Company, Inc. representing Monticello Industrial Park. Inc..
Dennis Taylor and myself described in detail the extent of this zoning district
amendment request and the general premise of the request. With regard to the
scope of the rezoning, we have provided exhibits which illustrate the areas to
be rezoned and will provide, later in this letter, the approximate areas of the
requested amendments.
We will elaborate on the basis for this request during our presentations to
the City Council and various City commissions: however, as a summary statement
of our position, we offer tho following:
Prior to January, 1992, the property (150.9 acres) was zoned I-1, B-2,
B-3 and RPUD source: Attached Chelsea Area Land Use and Circulation
Study, dated January, 1992. The RPUD (Residential Planned Unit
Development) zoning district is limited to property east of County
Road 118. an area of approximately 28.7 acres. The B-3 district was
limited to land north of Chelsea, extending to I-94. The B-2 and I-1
zoning districts extended to the subject property's southern boundary;
School District No. 882 north boundary. The east -west dimension of
the B-2 district on the School District line measured approximately
1,270 feet, while the east -west dimension of the I-1 district was
1,360 feet; both Districts adjoin school District property, for a
total length of 2.630 feet (refer to Exhibit A) . Immediately south
An Eo" 000on—N EMWorw
0
EXHIBIT A
�%�.-- n,. .�. n,�n_ n,,,n, ham. � 714�,�( �i..�
� ! B 2 r
a.m.�s
SUBJECT '— r R_1 R -PUD
PROPERTY
SCHOOL DISTRICT 882
1991 ZONING
City of Monticello
ri'13 ..
Chelsea Area Land Use and Circulation Study
11 I I � . B -Z
R-1
AO
t xisI in 7_ oning
R I Stale Imay a 11 Wined B DWss
`t R ARD Resw,,wIl
r�OO M~d Itw 0—k,e.rera !) IYRAwtr &—s
�O t R t Akb4 I kuru PwY 1 1 1 ism Yduslrul
AO Apk Jlud/Opeo Spme 1 7 Ilet.r Ydusbul
PI M 14rl.w mtn.e 7o..e AN..A
11 I I � . B -Z
R-1
AO
P velort n's IRS P`44
Mr. Jeff O'Neill
April 19, 1993
Page Two
and adjoining the B-2 and the I-1 districts is a R-1. Residential
district; the School District property of approximately 120 acres.
In 1991, the City reviewed a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Application
for School District #882. This requested CUP was for land contiguous
to the subject property I-1 zoned land. At that time, the school
district was seeking a permit to construct an elementary school
fronting Fallon Avenue. The school would be located approximately 500
feet south of the I-1 District boundary (refer to the attached Site
Plan) .
In July, 1991. the City Council approved the Conditional Use Permit
for School District 0882, paving the way to construct an elementary
school. The background planning reports and opinions provided by the
City's planning consultant and City staff (Council Agenda 07/22/91)
stated that the Elementary School proposal was "consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, compatible with the character of the existing and
future neighborhood" and "represents a positive development factor in
this ares". The elementary school would be sited approximately 500
feet south of the I -1/R-1 zoning district boundary. 'Ilse intervening
open space and planned active recreation facilities occupying the
space between the school and the I -I zoning district boundary were
"mitigating factors". The Conditional Use Permit approval required an
buffer strip along the north boundary line, consisting of evergreens
planted 15 feet on -center. Another pertinent statement contained in
the staff background report to the City Council was the following: "it
appears that school development as proposed dovetails nicely with the
overall development pattern".
The July 22, 1991 City Council approval motion found the school
facility consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and compatible with
the character of the existing and future neighborhood.
In January, 1992. a study was published titled 'Chelsea Area Land Use
and Circulation Study". The plan addressed issues of land use
compatibility, zoning, land use intensity and land use transitions.
The end result of the study, relative to the Monticello Commerce
Center subject property, was the "creation" of the BC zoning district
which was adopted and made a part of the City's zoning ordinance on
February 24, 1992 (refer to Exhibit B).
The BC zoning district includes essentially all permitted uses
contained in the I -I zoning district; however, significant design and
site plan standards encumber the BC district and distinguish it from
the I-1 district. Those standards include a requirement for 30% open
apace. increased front yard setback (50 feet versus 40 feet). 10,000
square foot larger minimum lot size in the BC District, and the
requirement that not more than 50% of any exterior wall be metal or
fiberglass in the BC District.
zogm
1
t
o�
110 oj—
o vw�
typo O O O o
.� o o Do
j � T
o
D
oma.•
x•11= EM M [ 1 all -I
p
L
ob
EXHIBIT B
1992 PRESENT ZONING
m
fo
p
A
0
OW 96fea s �•?oRi
Mr. Jeff O'Neill
April 19, 1993
Page Three
The BC zoning of the subject property allows for the same permitted
uses as the I-1 district; however, the BC district, which is
approximately 107 acres of the subject property, has a requirement for
30% of the area to be green space, which equals more than 30 acres.
We understand the purpose and intent of the BC zoning district,
relative to the school district property. The fact that the school
buildings are situated a substantial distance south of the subject
property and that the intervening open space is planned for recreation
and athletic fields mitigates potential conflicts in land use.
Furthermore, the owners of the Monticello Commerce Center propose to
construct, as early as Fall, 1993, a 3 to 4 foot earthen berm and
plant 3-4 conferious trees, 15 -foot on center on the berm the entire
length of the south property line, except no berm will be constructed
where storm water ponds are to be located (refer to Typical Section).
The berm, plantings and accessory drainage swales/ ponds will
substantially achieve the expressed intent of the BC zoning district
open space provisions. This proposal will provide special separation
and positive visual aesthetics.
The attached Exhibits A and B illustrate 1991 - 1992 City zoning of
the subject property and Exhibit C illustrates the Owner's requested
zoning.
The 1991 zoning (Exhibit A) included 28 acres of B-2 while the Owner
proposes 5.2 acres. We believe Neighborhood Commercial (B-2) is very
important to the overall development of the southeast section of
Monticello.
The 1991 zoning included 35 acres of B-3, while the Owner proposes
23.6 acres. We believe the B-3 districts provided an important array
of retail and service uses complimentary to the area and the future
planned development pattern of southeast Monticello.
The 1991 zoning included 60 acres of I-1, while the Owner proposes 53
acres.
The 1991 zoning included no BC, while the Owner proposes 53 acres; we
believe the BC zoning along the Interstate Highway and Chelsea
achieves the objectives of a Business Campus aesthetics.
The SC zoning along I-94 and Chelsea will serve the City and the
Monticello Commerce Center well and uphold the purpose and intent of
the BC District along these high exposure and high visibility
corridors.
We understand the R -PUD land use was in place prior to the School
District's involvement. The residential zoning and development
activity to the east of Highway 118 warrants retail and service uses
convenient and proximal to end users.
15' G�%• aH lgE1�11
•
o
EXHIBIT C
83
83
A
SUBJECT R-1 PUD
PROPERTY
SCHOOL DISTRICT 682
1993 OWNER REOUESTED •
44
db
0
0
4%)4Lk0P1.R, 3 Ref *Rt
Mr. Jeff O'Neill
April 19, 1993
Page Four
The proposed circulation plan and apparent City support for an
interchange component at Highway 118 and 1-94 are complimentary though
not dependent on the Owner proposed B-3. B-2, park and ponding plans
for property east of C.R. 118.
The proposed land use and roadway plans for the east 28 -acre parcel
are well -conceived and provide for a balanced pattern of development;
i.e., retail, services, ponding, park, road circulation and
multi -density residential.
To the best of our knowledge, at the time the City was completing the
Chelsea Area Industrial Park/School Facility Land Use Plan and
conducting hearings regarding land use and zoning changes, the subject
property was in receivership. The current owner recognizes the need
for the 1992 Chelsea Area Study and is proactive in working
constructively with the City and area land owners to develop and
market the Monticello Commerce Center property. The Owner and its
team of consultants seek to "shape" this property for productive use
and become a source of pride for Monticello. The proposed "shaping",
i.e., rezoning, is not contrary to the City's long-term development
plans for the area.
We believe the the long-term success of the Monticello Commerce Center
is dependent upon rezoning portions of the property as requested. The
diversity of the proposed zoning plan and the resultant array of
associated uses will be conducive to the future development of the
Commerce Park and complimentary to the area. We believe the concept
of the Monticello Commerce Center at I-94 and Highway 118 compliments
the City's long-range land use plans, the apparent growth pattern, and
will result in progressive development.
The southeast area of Monticello from Fallon Avenue East consists of
approximately 600 gross acres. The Chelsea Area Land Use Plan
contemplates approximately 600 households in this area. This could
result in 1,600 - 1,900 population. Additionally, the Chelsea Area
Land Use Plan contemplates up to two million gross square feet of
light industrial uses at development saturation. This development
potential, in conjunction with the School District uses, the potential
Ice Arena, churches and recreational facilities emphatically point to
the importance for planned development, responsive to the market and
supportive to the neighborhood and the greater southeast section of
Monticello.
The proposed zoning amendment request was based on considerations,
such as;
1. Area stormwater requirements;
2. Future land subdivision;
3. Additional road requirements;
4. Apparent City support for an interchange;
Mr. Jeff O'Neill
April 19. 1993
Page Five
0901de ,79 S A&fcv t
Future development and marketing;
Transitional buffers;
Future development flexibility; and
Land use context.
In conclusion, the applicant/owner desires the proposed zoning changes
vithin the Monticello Commerce Center and beleives Monticello will benefit from
the diversity in zoning. Such diversity creates an "energy" and synergism;
diversity and "energy" nurtures identity and commerce. Schools, churches.
parks, housing, retail and employment opportunities all generate community
longevity and tax base. Successful communities cultivate a "sense of place"
and are self-sustaining.
The zoning diversity, as requested, will provide for an array of uses which
will promote vitality and bring valuable opportunities to this important area
of Monticello. The City has "guided" this area prudently. The Owner's of the
Monticello Commerce Center desire to participate in implementing the City's
plans. We understand this is a long-term program and view this as a vital
first step.
Kindest regards.
M C M�B�SFFRANK BS ASSOCIATES. INC.
ieh 1 J. eiOOr
MO:jmk
A P R- 2 9- 9 3 T" U 9: 0 9 0
P O
C. ' P 1 o. lend- 00 Pe O ; esPo�sc JC) +We.ton t
NAC Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
V A 9 A N PLANNING- DESIGN - MAAKE T RRSR ARCH
PLANNING REPORT
T0: Jeff O'Neill
FROM: Elizabeth 9COC)Dnan/Stephen Grittmaa
DATE: 29 April 1993
RE: Monticello - Coammerce Center Rezoning
FILE NO: 191.07 - 93. 04
BACKGROUND
In January of 1992, a land use plan was adopted for the Chelsea
area, south of Interstate 94 and east of State Highway 2E, as part
of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The project was initiated to
address developing land use conflicts in the area and provide a
means which the City could utilize to guide future development in
a coordinated and cohesive manner. The area is viewed as a unified
eub-region as well as a component of the larger community.
The basis for establishment of the land uses which were adopted
remains a valid part of the overall City plan and provides an
integral link between existing industrial and commercial
development, the School District property, residential
subdivisions, and future development upon now vacant lands. A
summary of the intent of each area, as shown in Exhibit A. to
included as follows.
Heavy Industrial
Heavy industrial toned land is bounded by major roadways which act
as a buffer zone around the district to maintain the visual quality
of the exterior, while outdoor storage and primary activities are
allowed on the interior. Direct access is available to stats and
interstate highways where highway business uses complemont tho
truck traffic and adjacent industry. The supply of available
parcels is sufficient to last well into the future.
s P R— 2 9— 9 3 T M U 9: 0 9
O
P 0 3
Business Campus
The need for increased site development standards in industrial
areas, as well as the necessity to provide land uses compatible
with the School District property, lead to the designation of a
Business Campus District. A transition between the heavy
industrial land uses to the west and the residential uses to the
east provides added justification for this decision, while positive
visibility and vehicular circulation aspects further support it.
The long term supply of campus style developmant with high
architectural and open space standards is vieved as an integral
portion of the comprehensive community plan. The increased site
standards and subsequent escalated value have a direct impact on
the City's tax benefits and are intended to balance out lower
valued development which 'consumes" more public services provided
to it than it -pays for* in property taxes.
Commercial
Land currently zoned Highway and Regional Business within the City,
located predominantly along Interstate 94 and Highway 23, is
intended to serve an extended clientele, attracting persons from
the City and region. The Limited Business District, established
between the interstate and the School Dietsiet property along
County Road 115, is intended to provide convenience and support
services for adjacent residential areae. The acreage of the B-3
zone has been assigned based on the anticipated surrounding
development and service area.
The commercial districts complement one another by satisfying a
specific need. The Limited Business area does not detract from the
intent of the Regional and Highway Business core and does not
require a high visibility location because it serves the
neighborhood rather than the traveling public or rest of the
community. While potential development of an interchange at County
Road 118 my occur, it would not affect the size or type of
commercial business in this location from a land use planning
perspective.
PROPOSAL
A proposal to rezone a portion of the Chelsea area has been
submitted by Pfeffer Company, Inc.. The property is located
between the School District land and industrial development to the
west and residentially toned land to the east. The request is
being pursued to establish the 'Monticello Commerce Center'. The
applicants wish to provide a variety of coamorcial and industrial
,-lPR29- a3 T "u 9: 1 0 0 P 14
4f,��lo•n^�Q �eDs��
a 1
districts with plane of attracting all types of business clientele.
The subject property is currently zoned a combination of BC,
Business Campus, B-2, Limited Business, and R -PUD, Residential
Planned Unit Development as shown in Exhibit B.
ISSUES ANALYSIS
Qzorehensige Plan, The proposed rezoning is an alteration of the
intent of the Chelsea Area Plan, which was adopted ae part of the
City's Comprehensive Plan, given the types and locations of land
uses proposed. Any change in what was previously approved would
require an official amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, including
both written and graphic material.
gs:onina. The property owners wish to rezone their land as shown
in Exhibit C to include a lesser area of BC, Business Campus and B-
2, Limited Business while adding 1-1, Light Industrial and B•3,
Highway Business, and reducing the area of R -PUD, Residential
Planned Unit Development. This raises concerns for several
reasons:
business Campus versus =nduntrial. The decrease in business
campus land use and increase in industrial land use negates
the City's intent to provide a long term supply of business
campus property inclusive of high quality architectural and
open space design. In this regard, the provision of remaining
business campus land in a "strip" arrangement along the
Chelsea corridor dilutes the benefits of a campus atmosphere,
as was achieved in the adopted plan through designation of a
larger contiguous area. One benefit of at campus type
arrangement is the assurance that land owners Lad adjacent
properties share the same desire to invest in high quality
architectural and site design.
While it is viewed as most advantageous if the majority of the
business campus area remains as currently zoned, it nay be
possible to provide the property owners with some alternative
for establishment of light industrial land. An shown in
Exhibit D, the provision of a small portion of light
industrial land fronting Callon Avenue may provide compatible
land use transition without disrupting the intent of the
Chelsea Area Plan.
2) Surrounding Area Uses. The proposed industrial land uses
would create unnecessary conflict with the School District
property given the smaller lot sizes which are proposed and
the lesser aesthetic requirement@ impceed as part of the I-1
District. While a buffer strip has been proposed as east of
the rezoning request, overaii lot sazss a aptae nova peen
shown at reduced sizes when coa+pared to the adopted Chelsea
APR -^.9-93 T MU
9: 1 0 O
l P- oz
C��
�
P
Area Plan, which would bri.na bnil.dings closer to the School
District land and increase overall area density. Also, in
association with minimal open space area on lots, the lesser
architectural and landscaping standards will be more
prominent.
3) Highway Business. The addition of a Highway Business District
in place of limited business park areas is viewed as
inappropriate in relation to the overall City goals. The
intent of the Chelsea Area Plan was to maintain and promote
highway and regional businesses along the Highway 25 corridor,
while allowing only neighborhood, convenience, and/or support
commercial on a limited basis to serve adjacent residential
development. The 2-94/County Road 118 intersection, with its
limited visibility and access is not a prime location for
highway oriented development and would only detract from the
highway and regional development along State Highway 25.
it could be possible, however, to achieve a compromise between
the City's needs and the property owner's deeiree. The
location of limited business development on the west vide of
County Road 118 as shown in Exhibit e, ie not as critical as
is maintaining the same designation and approximate area of
such. in this regard, the City may opt to allow a change in
orientation at that intersection without being detrimental to
previous land use planning efforts.
Residential and Park Land. Deletion of a portion of park and
residential land is proposed to provide additional area for e-
3, Highway Business development on the east aide of County
Road lie. For the same reasons as indicated in item 3) above,
the provision of B-3 land is viewed negatively. Secondly, the
elimination of park land may be in conflict with the City's
need for multi -use open apace areas within the community and
does not allow for the parking of vehicles. Furthermore, the
extension of Chelsea Road across County Road lie to connect
with a local street system ie unacceptable. In this scenario,
segregation between public/residential and commercial/
industrial uses is no longer achieved utilizing County Road
119, but rather invitee truck traffic into residential and
public areas.
SUMMARY
The proposed rezoning of land within the Chelsea Area is being
requested to provide a business park capable of attracting varied
types of commercial and industrial uses. While the concept may be
relevant, as may the financial and marketability aspects also be,
the proposal does not consider the City as a unified whole, but
rather attempts to provide diversity on a small scale and somewhat
APR -29-93 THU 9 : 1 1 0 P. 0e
C 4 P(,"^t 1? �•P0it4
gggre�!ted �„nnnr. In this regard. the City must consider the
commuaity's best interests while at the came time adequately
address the needs of the applicant. One of three options are
available
1. Deny the rezoning proposal based on issues identified herein.
2. Approve the rezoning request based on the applicant's
proposal.
3. permit flexibility by allowing limited alterations to the
adopted Land Use Plan in one or both of the following areas
(see 8xhibit D) i
a. Allow opportunity for light industrial development
fronting Pallor Avenue between the School District
property and Chelsea Road.
b. Allow opportunity for relocation of H-2 ccamercial uses
in one or more quadrant(c) of the County Road 118/1.94
intersection, provided the came area is maintained ae
that approved as part of the adopted plan.
5 d '/
City of Monticello
Chelsea Area Land Use and Circulation Study
Conceptual Area Plan
D
T
Ci ty of Montice1 to Chelsea Area Land Use and Circulation Study M
N
t0
I
O
c
� w
----.-1--L`i-�- 7c)
RQI
JItT? .a.•
t•
Q
0
0
0
City of Monticello
Chelsea Area Land Use and Circulation Study
1-1
RI I
r -i)7-701-1111
i
I
C
W
D
0
4
Ci ty of Mont icel to Chelsea Area land Use and Ci rculat ion Study
'D
L
E7
U
�--ity of Monticello
PLANNING COKMISSION RECON?.. DATION
Chelsea Area Land Use and Circulation Study
D
U
A
AP .IO, 1993
CHANGES To COMPREHENSIVE LANA USE I -.-N NECESSARY TO SUPPORT PROPOSED ZONING DISTHICI k,NN)MENTS
City of Monticel to Chelsea Area Land Use and Ci rculat inn Sturly ^
J
Q
a
C
0
Prop used I. and Ll se
I ISH Ilrmn} Hrsiarnl 1 ❑ 4,flil,ilnmal �G+`�
` nlrauu„ ll.•n,n, Ilr.ulrnlul N,jIl,l.,.1h, I C,—
............
'nnu.n,u,u n i.il p �i
}r^r_� I / I � �. / \�, �� `�, AWJiJr lt�n,ir l'.nl � I�F�IiI lin4�tliwl ❑
El
Ilydv, InAu�l�ul
I'H(1M NFIGIIHORH(HglCU"IMf.HCIAI.•
'1'0 111611WAY CnD4•if•H(-IAI.Ij
•j+l_ ..�='``.� '`•\ � - - I :��� Vii— d
^�'•\` �/ I'HUM INS'I'ITl'l'Iut:Al.
\•��'•. TO III GI, AY AND NEIGH(�ItilnnU lO.`:Nfft ('1AI.
•••. :t —
1_
E
EXAMPLES Sixth Street Annoy
Any convonlonco Glom, Iaundromat,
medical olfko3 Ford, Porkins
ZONING DISTRICT DESCRIPTIONS
B-3
B-2
ZONE DISTRICT
I
Limited Business District
PURPOSE
'Low intensity retail or service
and service activities
limited market scale at edge of
Tiro Cientq, RV Bales, Paterson
residential districts
PERMfTTEO
All B-1 uses, Conven. sitores, banks,
to USES
offices, drug Store, ftalst shop,
tgrocery
or supermarket, hardware,
. •
gas station, gift store. etc.
T
Open outdoor storage as
CONDITIONAL
Multiple family, governmental and
W (USES
public uul Clogs. Commercial PUD
a principal use. Doi Clinic, auction,
M
go Carts, day Caro. Car body shop
}
YARD
Front -30 Stao-20 Roaf-30
r iREOU1REMENTS
,Lot aro3 - NA, lot width - 00'
T OUTSIDE
Not allowed
N_ STORAGE
BUILDING
Goncrol standards
DESIGN
iComplate stool allowed
7 PARKING
General standards
GREEN
General standards
V SPACE
15% green space
�N
EXAMPLES Sixth Street Annoy
Any convonlonco Glom, Iaundromat,
medical olfko3 Ford, Porkins
ZONING DISTRICT DESCRIPTIONS
B-3
BC
Highway Business District
Business Campus
Provide for motor veh. Commercial
Light industrial, offices. Showrooms
and service activities
in environment w/high level of
Tiro Cientq, RV Bales, Paterson
amenities, landscaping, arch cntrl
All B-1 and B-2, car accessory store.
Virtually same as 1-1
commercial recreation, motels. bars.
restaurants, off -sale liquor, small
printing office
Drive -In, fast food, car wastes,
Open outdoor storage as
vehicle repair shop, now/usea auto
an accessory use, industrial PUD,
sales, open/OutdDor slorage,'sales as
indoor limited retail sales
a principal use. Doi Clinic, auction,
commercial storage in building,
go Carts, day Caro. Car body shop
auto repair - minor
Front -30 Srdo-20 Roar -20 Front -50 Sido-30 Roar -40
Lot area - NA, 101 width - 100' Lot area - 30,000, lot width - 100'
Allowed as a conditional use Allowed as a Conditional use
General requirements Exposed metal limited to 50% of
Complete stool allowoo anyone wall Root slope max 1/12
Goneral rcqulromonts General - same as I-1
Gonoral requirements
General requirements
15% green space
30% groan space
Troo plantings along R-1/BC edgespp
Oondal Ramal. en fan Io00e,
NAWCO. Tapper, Rommolo
Tiro Cientq, RV Bales, Paterson
Amplax, Bangor, Clow
1-1
Light Industrial
Warehousing and light
industrial development
Virtually same as BC
Open and outdoor storage
Same as 1-t, outdoor service
sale and rental as principal use.
Industrial PUD, amusement Places.
Consignment sales, major/minor
auto roDarr. truck and heavy
equipment rovav
Front -40 Sldo-30 Rear -40
Lot area - 20.000, lot wOth - IDo'
Allowed as a conditional use
General requirements
Complete peel ato.0a
Gonoral - same as B -C
General requirements
15% green Spacs
M A P Trancporl, Custom Canopy
NSP Regional Cent or
SMA Elevator
Auo."0 SE ZC-e-Tfzcn ,y75rocy
6%1-6661? S,Fk., J,�5
Council Minutes - 9/28
11. Consideration of Zoning Mal? Amendment — Boyle Property.
At the previous Council meeting, consideration of changing the zoning
classification on the Boyle property adjacent to the new middle school
site was tabled to allow Mr. Boyle and his representatives additional
time to review the proposed zoning changes, mr. Boyle, in a written
letter to the Council, objected to the proposed zoning changes but did
feel that a rezoning change to all light industrial would be
acceptable.
The Cty's Consulting Planner, along with the Planning Commission,
reeoaonanded that changes be made to the zoning because of the school
location reclassifying heavy industrial zoning to a lower use such as
ca�ercial and light industrial. It was noted by the Council that the
City would certainly consider future zoning changes on this property as
development occurs and proposals are presented; but a motion was made
by Bill Pair, seconded by Warren Smith, and unanimously carried to
amenA the City Zoning ordinance Map for the Boyle property in question �
to light industrial, highway business, and limited businoss. See
Zoning Ordinance [dap Amendment NQ --1 S9
Council Agenda - 9/28/87
11. Consideration of Zoning Map Amendment - Boyle Property (R.w.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the previous Council meeting, consideration of changing the zoning on
the Boyle property adjacent to the new middle school site was tabled to
allow Mr. Boyle and his representatives additional time to review the
proposed zoning changes. At the previous meeting, comments from the
City's Consulting Planner were distributed which basically confirmed the
Planning Commission and staff's recommendation that zoning changes be
implemented on Mr. Boyle's property now that the school is nearing
completion.
The City staff initially requested the Planning Commission consider down
zoning a portion of the property from its current heavy industrial zoning
to a lower classification to prevent a heavy industrial use from being
established adjacent to the school property. Because at this time
Mr. Boyle does not have a firm development plan for the area, nor has he
submitted a subdivision request, the staff felt that using existing
section lines and reclassifying the zoning to a lower use would be
appropriate at this time. I believe the Planning Commission and the.City
staff feel that the City would certainly be willing to look at any
proposed development and zoning changes at a later date when a
subdivision plan or proposal is presented. we are certainly not
advocating that the proposed zoning changes being recommended are cast in
concrete, but we feel it is in the best interest of the city and the
adjacent property to implement a zoning change at this time.
Mr. Jim Boyle and his development representatives have been sent a copy
of the proposed zoning changes and comments received from the City's
Consulting Planner. Enclosed with the agenda is a letter from Mr. Jim
Boyle requesting that the City Council only down zone the property
currently zoned heavy industrial to light industrial at this time but
leave open the option for further down zoning to commercial uses at a
later date. I explained to Mr. Boyle and his development representatives
that the City staff and Planning Commission did not feel the entire
property should be only zoned light industrial and that the City's
proposal would be flexible in the future depending on his future plans.
It appears that Mr. Boyle is certainly agreeable to light industrial
zoning, which would leave him more options for selling the property; but
1 believe the Planner's recommendations and the Planning Commission's
recommendations are more appropriate.
B. ALTERNATIVE AC"IONS:
1. Approve the zoning amendment as proposed by the Planning Commission.
2. Approve the rezoning to only light industrial per Mr. Boyle's
request.
1. Leave as is.
-a-
Council Agenda — 9/28/87
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the staff's recommendation that the initial down zoning of the area
as approved and submitted at the last Council meeting be adopted. I
believe it is appropriate that the minutes indicate that the Council is
certainly willing to look at additional zoning changes in the future as
development plans are presented by the owner; but the staff feels it is
important that zoning changes are implemented at this time primarily to
avoid the heavy industrial usage adjacent to the school. It should be
noted that the proposed zoning changes in the B-2 and B-3 classifications
would allow the developer flexibility to present proposed uses in both
the multiple family and commercial atmosphere. Mr. BoyleIsrequest to
down zone all of the property to only light industrial is certainly
better than the current heavy industrial zoning, but the staff feels that
further down zoning into business uses is more appropriate.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of a letter from Nr. Boyle regarding the zoning change; Copy of the
proposed zoning changes recommended by the Planning Commission.
COP),
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 159
THE MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL HEREBY ORDAINS THAT THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP FOR THE
CITY OF MONTICELLO BE AMENDED AS FOLL40WS:
Description of Property
The following property in Auditor's Subdivision No. 1 lying southwest of
Interstate 94 encompasses the following boundary limits: On the west by
Fallon Avenue; on the east by County Road 118, on the south by the
Monticello City/Monticello Township line.
The attached Zoning Maps show the previous zoning and the new zoning for the
above unplatted property.
Adopted this 28th day of September, 1987.
Arve A. Grimsmo, Mayor
RicR lio Este pr
City Administrator
Apm 5164&
5010 9..A.014d, fflai& 0-202 &4,tLdalq .d fon 85254 IW2Y 469-3.76.9
Today is Thursday
September 24. 1987
Mr. Rick Wolfsteller•
Citv of Monticello
250 East Sr•oadwav
Montical la. Minnesota 55762-9245
RE: Proposed Rezoning of the Industrial Part:
Dear Rick:
We totallv oppose the Citv Councils intention of acting on the
proposed down zoning_ at their meeting_ Monday evening. September•
28th.
I feel this action will devalue the Pr•nnorty conoider•ably. As I
mentioned in my September 14th letter. our intention if to Plan
the entire Pat -It and It ie imaosolble to do a thc-ouch plan in
such a short time.
Sincerely.
Jim Boyle
JB/kb
cc Ken Pinckar•d. Attorney
Lynn C 1 Ar•k
I B2 I 63 \\
I , •
�I I et
Pt
MIDDLE MIDDLE
SCHOOL I jcRouoast.
PRODEAir , Llr11i I
I i I
I � I III
pt :L------�—'—`
I,woo � ,�JG.aS�la,ak, 9'o.Y.• �•ros ,��olGdaln .,aG:ja..aaszsa /soQfces.ss�v
Today is Monday
September 14. 1987
Mr. Rick Wolfsteller
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
Monticello, Minnesota 55--62-9245
RE: Zoning - Industrial Park
Dear Rickr
We have had extensive conversation with legal counsel regarding
the down zoning of the Industrial Park. Their recommendation is
to not change zoning at this time.
In the spirit of cooperation and understanding of the City's
concern, we would agroo to a down zoning of the heavy industrial
to light industrial. We would also reauest that we have the
option to further down :one the' light industrial to B-1-2 and/or
3.
We intend to commence to do a thorough study with consultants to
plan a designed business and residential community, with design
complimenting the school site.
Sincerely, !�
.r �Ay
Jim Boyle 17 U
.J JB/kb �
cc Lynn Clark
I
�.ea.ro..reo
CONSULTING PLANNERS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
300 FIRST AVENUE NORTH
SUITE ?10
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55101
612-339.3500
MEMORANDUM
DATE: 11 September 1987
TO: Rick Wolfsteller
FROM: John Uban, Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban, Inc.
RE: Middle School Development
I have reviewed the new Middle School development and surrounding property
in light of future land uses for that general area of Monticello. Also, under
consideration will be future road patterns and anticipated changes In market
demand for various land uses. Special attention was paid to the land owned
by Jim Boyle as It surrounds the school on three aides.
The following are my observations and suggestions for addressing the land use
Issues:
1. The land to the east and southeast Is proposed to be residential in
character with the approved PUD for Oak Meadows and the anticipated
development around the future water tower site. The Middle School
relates very well to the land uses that we anticipate on the eastern
edge of the school site.
2. The school Is projecting modest, but steady growth through the 1990 -
1991 year. The school experienced a 5 percent growth In the 1985 -
1986 year which could happen again should additional lands in the
general area be converted to residential housing.
There are approximately 100 square miles that must be serviced totally
by school buses. Local and county roads are used primarily for access
for school buses to the site. In the future, the Comprehensive Plan
Indicates that a half diamond Intersection will be built on County Road
118 and Interstate 94. With the completion of Chelsea Rood and the
future frontage road on the north side of Interstate 94, the school's bull
circulation will be greatly enhanced. We anticipate that the primary
mode of getting children to the school will be that of school bullas with
a minimum amount of children walking to school primarily from adjacent
neighborhoods to the east.
d /
Middle School Development, 11 September 1987 Page 2
We think, however, that the county and city road system serving the
site should accommodate good bike trails to facilitate pedestrian and
bike access to the school.
3. As the transportation system changes, so will pressures for new land
uses south of the interstate. With the extension of Chelsea Road and
the future half diamond on County Road 118, the opportunity for
business and commercial activity at the intersection directly north of
the school site greatly increases.
We believe that this access to the Interstate should not accommodate
regional road side business such as truck stops, but instead should be a
convenient location for community retail and office facilities. Much of
this will not happen, of course, until the diamond interchange is put in
place.
6. The geometrics of land patterns creates some odd shaped parcels
because of the diagonal road system in the area. As Chelsea Road
intersects with County Road 118, a triangular shaped parcel directly
north of the school is left. Some portion of this odd shaped lot would
be better attached to the school site then used for some other
development. Inefficiency and clumsiness of the parcel make it
inappropriate for other development. This would also offer another
point of direct access to the school site from the frontage road.
5. Presently the zoning of all of the land directly north of the Middle
School property is 1.2, heavy industrial. The continuation of this
particular land use is not compatible with general school activity. It
also does not take advantage of the reasonably good access and
visibility to the Interstate system. We believe that the more
appropriate development along the Interstate would be of the light
Industrial of Office Warehouse/Showroom type development that strongly
requires visibility on an Interstate system. Thin type of development
also does not create a lot of truck traffic or unsightly storage yards
that would be detrimental to the Middle School. The Office Warehouse
type development tends to be quieter and does not produce dust or
obnoxious odors and generally is perceived as a more compatible use
with both residential and school activity. The Oakwood Industrial Park
which also fronts on Dundas Road will absorb most of the heavy
Industrial uses that will be required for future growth In the City. The
Industrial area east of Fallon Avenue and north of the Middle School
property can be converted to other uses.
6. Oundaa Road to an Industrial rood and Ito terminus should be at Fallon
Avenue. The area east of Fallon Avenue to relatively flat with a small
wetland depression In the center of it. This area could develop Into a
residential PUO mixing medium density and low density single-family
into a compatible arrangement addressing the Industrial land In the
Oakwood Industrial Park and the adjacent school property.
7. Enclosed with our area maps Is a schematic land use drawing that could
be considered one possible amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and a
use as a guide for future rezonings. 4
.s ANLa
V
r
e2
v' ' "
1,
100
City *U MonMAROS:*
t ellc
wrgyp CGNY Minnes_'
o -��"
Grave4A �
!,
959 PI .:)
r
%�. \.�—
�.` TICEVt1 b READ mix
_W�WAS" I •`��I
T ,�� I ♦ C
�.
• i. � MipDL BSCHOOL SITE
�` •-
OYLE ,r-rl �'' O i
�- 0
J. 'LEE E:N
60 1 ;1 - -
D8J
S
100 c
• /�
1 �%L/_ City of P�lonticellc
i F. DEN �: Q ' S Wn m Co my ML -CCC'
�.� PRIMARY OWNERSHIP
S t I� n A ea � t
oo ¢oo 400 no
%Q� �I :�
Grave4
/ i + ° 9). 959 PI
� �6 I_•�•�,/ � � �_ �� /�-. — _ � � eta
•
l = N{lp LE SCHOOL SITES -
�oo .,•� 1, � •—... � �o ..
���• �ii'r iii i
60
/ /1� - � 1 •`' /� ` � 1.1
-� �z�`l EI L -ti �� �• 1,}
• �_�� goo z
- ``` _,! • City of Monticellc
J I I W, o CauMY Mlnn•3G•
�•� �`��-� PETITIONED AREA
aitiCn A ea/'
1•
JAL `
DUMAS t' M _ 11 _ ♦•��
Irl i■ II im 1 ■ w III IN -1 li 11 iu I.i r`T 1 t�j
J .r
Vp LE SCHOO SITE
v
�-' H
60
�ttmoii)cci n A ea ., q
C7
Grave' A 1
100
City of Monticelic
t f MS'm C nY Mi w='
ZONING
1 �
i
0
L-.
id r
e
G
-
1J
100
City of Monticelic
t f MS'm C nY Mi w='
ZONING
S'
I• 1� r - � � -- I • I �t�• � \ «�.. } SII i
.1 ITS
"0111110 L.A
YR•'' V � r/�. E R
— - -' N�i'. �___ ::�.�i, it f•►�. ��s:�,-'' � • ' '�{ ' , _ a._...;,�-tI',
•tetI\ . I �:"\' � .�-q� • yrs' �,? I ti tm i,��, �I, � � I�
•41 `�1 1 1 (•s {{
.,^,�•�,�%'�1� 1 (.1'��I A�S^,�, )yGC_ � ILMI S
+•1 f i� ,r '::�, 1�.1,�.c,� � � ' 1 1�.–'!f'I•—i —il_ �..5;—��a,t�of Ir„ i� r«,w I ... • i
, � , SII I � •1 •il l•
,J _ ! M1; � . - l,rr�C!;�,�. I �: L..—f (r^'i . S+. �•J11 as_ilv.:. _ i -- -- �' . �-, -
• �;� : sw � •- ;•1•'-' "' moi' . • 1 ' ')� � ,` I.
Ih
...y :/ A. ff I C Y I
jl 4 •A I /P�IJ�, q „1. A l `I�i: R t «
.11 r -s! q'j,•.• - i:�::.1r \ � ■ - •i r� .r'.;,t�l�r e.,,ij . I
?�, _ • r ?I yt1` , �11.. �_.w.�i. ,��; i. !'IM!�' (-` \\awl\1_ _ - �r _ _ �- { �• � •` ,
' ''��jji+�'•i.��' , ,. •1,,,1 .I ' � r + -��•' •iir •.1 . L �„ ��� I �i I <1 � �. `�� i, �',•
(� �� i4 � •• i. .r. �f'�� , � 1:41.; , � ` � « • ,�Fj�\�\�� � -. �.•• '!T': tri: .'
_rr`i•-1•�� •�. �.. I t1--�u•21'.r: ' I.t _._ � � t � �%'�� »z. :_t _..�.I\„ .- r �� , .�.
c c
C5
OFF
-V
LIGHT WD
nUNnAS ie
/*Dl ENSITY J S I
SdHObL
LE SCHOOJ,_SITE
Graw
Pi
4%
F. S
H-4 I AR
("v
100 c
City of Monticelic
A
�t LANO USE CONCEPT
200 400 too
Council Minutes - 9/14/87
Page 3
6. Consideration of Zoning Flap Amendment - Boyle Property.
Recently the City staff initiated a proposed ordinance amendment that
would change the zoning on the Jim Boyle property lying south of I-94
and east of the Oakwood Industrial Park adjacent to the new middle
school property. The area was currently zoned partially light
industrial, with the majority heavy indusrial; and it was the staff's
opinion that the property should be down zoned somewhat to accommodate
uses adjacent to the new school.
A tentative rezoning of the area was proposed to the Planning
Commission who recommended the City Council adopt the rezoning as an
interim measure until the land owner subdivides the property in the
future. It was felt the proposed rezoning would not be necessarily
permanent in nature but would depend primarily on how the developer
planned on platting the property; and at that time the entire area
could be reviewed for possible additional amendments.
Property owner, Jim Boyle, requested the City Council not take any
official action at their meeting to enable himself to further research
all the possibilities that the new zoning may affect his property.
Mr. Boyle had been informed of the proposed rezoning hearing held by
the Planning Commission but had not been sham a map of the area and
the actual rezoning proposed. In addition, the City Consulting
Planner, Dahlgren, Shardlow 6 Oban, had not yet completed their review
of the proposed rezoningl and this information was received on
September 14, 1987.
As a result, motion was made by Bill Pair, seconded by Dan Blonigen,
and unanimously carried to table final action an the proposed rezoning
of the Jim Boyle property until the next regularly scheduled Council
meeting to allow the property owner additional time to review the
zoning changes and provide comment.
Council Agenda - 9/14/87
Consideration of Zoning Map Amendment - Boyle Property. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The City staff would like to initiate a proposed ordinance amendment to
the Monticello Zoning Map in the area bounded by the East I-94 freeway,
on the east by County Road 118, on the south by our southerly most
border, and on the west by Fallon Avenue. This area is currently under
the ownership of Mr. Jim Boyle and all his creditors.
Our main concern is under the current zoning with the newly constructed
Middle School just outside our borders, conceivably we could have a heavy
industrial building built right across from the new school. As you will
note on the enclosed site plan, you will see the existing zoning for it
and the new proposed zoning as we down zone into the area near the new
Middle School.
Public hearing notices were sent to property owners within a 350 -foot
radius of this proposed rezoning area. Mr. Jim Boyle was one of the
affected property owners that was sent a letter that basically said an
amendment to a certain area in the Monticello Zoning map. It didn't
indicate any area that was to be rezoned in the initial public hearing
notices that were sent out.
Mr. Boyle requested of the City not to have the public hearing on
Tuesday, September 8, but to hold off on the public hearing until the
next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting that is to be held
on Wednesday, October 14, 1987, at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Bc}le's reason for
tabling the public hearing at this time was to further research all
possibilities for the new zoning which we attached to this affected
property.
Mr. Rick Wolfsteller, City Administrator, requested that the Zoning
Administrator, prior to the September 8, 1987, Planning Commission
meeting, ask the Monticello Planning Commission to table the public
hearing for an amendment to a certain area in the Monticello Zoning map.
The Monticello Planning Cornmission, by unanimous consensus, recognized
Rick Wolf9teller's request for tabling the public hearing; but they saw
no need for tabling this public hearing in that Mr. Boyle was just using
it as a stall tactic not to have the area rezoned.
The Monticello Planning Conaaission, by unanimous vote, did recommend
approval of the proposed zoning changes to this area. Enclosed you will
find a copy of the existing zoning for this affected area and a copy of
the proposed rezoning of this area.
Tho Consulting Planner has been consulted to give us hia opinion on the
proposed rezoning changes. Due to some conflicts in their work schedule,
the Consulting Planner, John Uban, will have a report to us by Monday
evening.
Council Agenda - 9/14/87
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve an amendment to a certain area in the Monticello Zoning Map.
2. Do not approve an amendment to a certain area in the Monticello
Zoning Map.
3. Approve an amendment to a certain area in the Monticello Zoning Map
subject to some additional input from the City Council.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff would recommend approval of an amendment to a certain area in
the Monticello Zoning Map. We feel the zoning which we have applied from
west to east coming across the property along the extension of Chelsea
Road does facilitate some down zoning into the area of the new Middle
School. Also, the proposed zoning does allow a developer flexibility of
the different types of industries, businesses, and multiple family which
could be built on these newly rezoned properties.
We also feel, as a matter of courtesy, we should allow Mr. Boyle some
additional time to study this rezoning map and what affect it would have
on the properties he has within this area. You may choose to approve the
amendment to the zoning map as presented or table it until your next
regularly scheduled meeting for September 28, or until your first meeting
in October, which would be October 13, 1987.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed zoning amendment area; Copy of the
site plan of the existing zoning; Copy of the proposed new zoning.
-6-
An am--dment to a certain area in the Monticello
Zoning Map. _.
C-"! of Monticello.
NO 94
_ j wL �< .,. I 8 • �
a -�•tiw M I
e• ,
` I
1
1
Planning Commission Minutes - 9/8/67
8. Public Hearing - An amendment to a certain area in the Monticello Zoning
Mao, Aoollcant, City of Monticello.
Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated to Planning Commission members
that the City Administrator, Rick Wolfstel'_er, would like to request the
Planning Commission members to table this rezoning request until the next
regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting.
The Planning Commission members acknowledged the City Administrator's
request for tabling it, but they felt time was of the essence in that
public hearing notices had been sent, the public hearing notification had
been met, and they felt now was the time to get on with it and apply some
new type of zoning to this affected area. Planning Commission member Jim
Ridgeway questioned applying B-2 zoning in the two middle sections of
this rezoning request.. Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated we put
B-2 zoning in to allow flexibility of some type of residential multiple
family to occur in and near the school district, the northwesterly most
portion of the school's property; and also by allowing B-2 in the area,
there would be the possibility of having some type of multiple family
next to the freeway. Mr. Ridgeway indicated he thMght the best use for
the area next to the freeway would be for some type of highway business.
Chairperson Richard Carlson then opened the meeting for any input from
the public. Mr. Shelley Johnson, Superintendent of Monticello Schools,
was present to indicate the Monticello School District had no problems
with the proposed zoning as indicated on the site plan. He did indicate,
however, that we might at some point in time look at some type of 3-1
zoning in the northern one-half of this middle section.
with no further input from the public or Commission members, motion was
made by Jim Ridgeway, seconded by Joyce Dowling, to amend a certain area
of the Monticello Zoning Map with the only change going from B-2 (limited
business) to B-1 (highway business) in the north one-half of the center
section of this zoning map area. Motion carried unanimously.
Planning Commission Agenda 9/8/87
8. Public Hearing - An amendment to a certain area in the Monticello Zoning
Map. Applicant, City of flonruceiio. (G.A. )
A. REFEPEKE AND BACKGROUND
The City staff would like to initiate a proposed ordinance amendment to
the Monticello Zoning Clap in the area bounded by the East I-94 freeway
and on the east by County Road 118, and on the south by our southerly
most border, and on the west by Fallon Street. This area is currently
under the ownership of Mr. Jim Boyle and all his creditors.
our main concern is under the current zoning, with the newly constructed
Monticello Middle School just outside our borders, conceivably we could
have a heavy industrial building built right across from the new
Monticello Middle School. As you will note on the enclosed site plan,
you will see the existing zoning for it and the new proposed zoning as we
down zone into the area near the Monticello Middle School.
B. ALTERIUTrVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve an amendment to a certain area in the Monticello Zoning hap.
2. Do not approve an amendment to a certain area in the Monticello
Zoning Map.
3. Approve an amendment to a certain area in the Monticello Zoning Map
subject to some additional input from the Monticello Planning
Comm i ss ion .
C. SfACF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recormends approval of en amendment to a certain area in the
Monticello Zoning Map. We feel the zoning which we have applied from
west to east coming across this property along the extension of Chelsea
Road does facilitate some down zoning into the area of the new Monticello
Middle School. Also, the proposed zoning does allow a developer
flexibility of the different types of industries, businesses, and
multiple family which could be built on this newly rezoned property.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed toning amendment area; Copy of the
site plan of existing zoning; Copy of the proposed new zoning for this
area.
-8-
87
P Z- M
�►a
llI
s�odjl -
i
33 BJ2 R2
12 `\\
I
i
I
e
ITO Tana
..IR94T i 'R2 M
�I 2
W. wq��«� + I 1 (`�
PL
I1
MinDlf MiN f
S(IkNnt I roNa.
PRDptA►► t I t I m I T I
� t I
Planning Commission Minutes - 5/4/93
S. C, sidera,.. of a . nye::........., the � of
coniunction with the development of the Monticello Commerce Center.
Applicant. Monticello Industrial Park Inc. AND
6. Public Hearing—Consideration of amendments to the Citv of Monticello
Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Amendments are proposed in coniunction with
the request for zoning district boundary changes.
Jeff ONeill provided a brief history of the circumstances leading to the
rezoning request and described the request in detail. Steve Grittman reviewed
the Chelsea Corridor Study and outlined reasons supporting the zoning district
amendments made in conjunction with the Chelsea Corridor Study.
Chairperson Cindy Lemm then opened the public hearing.
Charlie Pfeffer commented on the background of his ownership of the property
to his request as presented before the Monticello Planning Commission. Mr.
Mike Gair, Mr. PfeBer's consulting engineer, commented on his background in
regard to industrial/commercial planning of properties like this.
In his presentation. Gair noted that the developer's rezoning proposal
reinstates land uses that were believed to be appropriate prior to the Chelsea
Corridor Study.
Mr. Gair then gave a detailed outline of his presentation. Mr. Steve Grittman
commented on the freeway ramp. What should be the zoning there if a
freeway was there versus if you applied zoning if it is not. If a freeway ramp
is installed eastbound, this doesn't increase the travelers stopping because of
this interchange. But it causes problems, taking away from existing Highway
25 businesses with the amount of travelers going through on Highway 25.
Mr. Pfeffer commented that all the rezoning in this area has been generated
by the City and not by a private owner.
Candace Bergstrom, a concerned resident, commented on bringing in
commercial across from the middle school entrance. Bringing in commercial
around reside nti ally. located school buildings is something she felt shouldn't be
a compatible use with the school in this area.
Commission member, Richard Mnrtie, commented he would like to see the
zoning remain as it is, maybe some changes in the future but not for now. Mr.
Martie was referring to the B-3 (highway business) zoning and the B-2 (limited
business) zoning on the east side of County Road 118.
Jon Bogart felt that there should be some type of 1.1 zoning next to Fallon
Avenue. rr
Planning Commission Minutes • 5/4/93
There being no further input. from the Planning Comjnission members, a
motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded by Jon Bogart to table the
consideration of amendments to the zoning map of Monticello proposed in
conjunction with the development of the Monticello Commerce Center and to
table the consideration of amendments to the City of Monticello Comprehensive
Land Use Plan. Amendments are proposed in conjunction with the request for
zoning district boundary changes. Motion carried unanimously with Brian
Stumpf absent.
Staff was asked to provide agendas and meeting minutes relating to zoning
amendments made prior to the Chelsea Corridor Study.
d7
Council Agenda - 6/14/93
a. Consideration of a zoning ordinance amendment which would allow
a permit for promotional 9ignage/hanner for two weeks out of every
month or a total of 168 days a vear. AN[)
9. Consideration of a zoning ordinance amendment that would allow for
an annual Permit fee of $25 to cover permitting costs associated with
Promotional signage fees. Applicant, 9 local businesses. IJ.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
On March 22, 1993, the City received an application for zoning ordinance
amendments as noted in the agenda title above. The applicants include
Country Kitchen, Downtown Standard, Holiday Station, Fump'N Munch, Tom
Thumb, Total Mart, Vance's Amoco, and West Side Market.
Since November of 1992. City staff, the City Planner, Planning Commission.
and local lousiness owners have been reviewing issues and policies relating to
display of banners. Unfortunately, the efforts made by the business owners
have not been consistently under the direction or leadership of one or two of
its members; therefore, it has been dif iculL to develop compromise positions
or alternative strategics for addressing the business owners needs without
granting un amendment. that would allow hanners to he displayed 168 days per
year versus the present restriction of 20 days per year.
Following is it brief summary of the meetings and discussions lending to the
question at hand. A full summary of some of the meetings is attached for
additional review at your discretion.
November 12, 1992. City staff, including ,Jeff O'Neill, Gary Anderson, and
Steve Grit.tman, met with (tick Vrihyl of Tum 'nitunh, Dorntby Ritz of Total
Mort., and Tom Holthaus of West. Side Markel.. The meeting wits called due to
routine enforcement action of the sign ordinance by Gary Anderson. In
response to the enforcement of the sign ordinance, Dorothy Ititz requested that
City staff review the sign ordinance and discuss possible changes to the
ordinance that would allow display of temporary signs and hanners for more
than 20 days per year as currently allowed by ordinance.
As it result of the ensuing discussion, itr was the consensus of the group that
Dorothy Ritz would prepare an outline of her request., and City stuff would
outline the pros and cons of three hasic options, which would include 11 no
change to the existing ordinance, 21 liberalization of the existing ordinance to
allow for more special event days or longer special event periods, and :1) to
allow :10 sq B temporary signs or hanners to Ix, placed on display at tiny
business rat tiny time.
Council Agenda - 6/14/93
1 t was the consensus of this group to bring the sign issue before the Planning
Commission in the firrm of a workshop to be conducted at the regular meeting
on December J. 14}l2.
December I, 1992. The Planning Commission reviewed the existing; ordinance
regulating temporary hanners and Signs and was asked to consider calling a
public hearing to arnend the present ordinance. Information regarding the
pros and cons of liberalizing the regulations governing hanners was discussed.
Present from the husiness community at this meeting included Dorothy Ritz,
owner of Total Mart; Kevin Olson, Manager of West Side Market; Don Grewe,
owner of Downtown Standard; and Patty Olsen with Edina Realty. Also
included was Cho manager of the local Purnp'N Munch store.
At the conclusion of the discussion, itwas the consensus of the Planning
Commission to have City staffresearch policies/rules governing portable signs
and banners in surrounding communities and metro communities and return
to the Planning Commission with a formal list of alternatives. It was noted at
that meeting Chat the Planning Commission would discuss this item in detail
at their next meeting.
January 5, 1993. As requested by the Planning Commission lit the 12/1/9:4
meeting, City stafl'presented additional information relating to the subject and
presented it to the Planning Commission firr review. It, included it detailed
review of the pros and cons of liberalizing rules governing use of temporary
hanners. The individuals from the business community present at the
December 1 meeting of the Planning t inunission did not, attend the meeting;
of,lanuary fi. The Planning Commission reviewed the recommendation made
by Steve Grittinan. It was the consensus of the commission to leave the
current, sign ordinance in effect until a petition firr an ordinance amendment
is received. In addition, itwas requested that the record reflect, the Planning
Commission's disappointment that the commercial property owners and
nuinagers concerned about the topic wem absent.
Ahirch 22, 149:1. Nine area businesses submit it formal request firr zoning
cwdinance amendments.
,rue-Aiay. April 6, 1993, Regular Meecine of the Monticello Plannin4
Commission. Planning Commission reviewed the. zoning ordinance request.
Inuttendance from Clio husinesscommunit.y was Dorothy Ritz frontTutal Mart,
Hick Pribyl of Tom 'thumb, and representatives front Pump 'N Munch and
West Side Market.. There was extensive discussion regarding the merits of
increasing the nuntlur of days that hanners can Ix displayed.
Council Agenda - 6/14/93
It wits the consensus of the Planning Commission that increasing the number
of days that banners are allowed to he displayed from 20 days to 168 days
would he an excessive increase; however• the commission would seriously
consider allowing an increase of up to 40 days per calendar year with a $25
annual fee or a $.5 per application fee with a maximum of $25 per year.
Planning Commission directed City staff to prepare specific zoning ordinance
amendment language accordingly and requested those business persons in
attendance to conic to the next meeting to discuss the matter further.
Tuesday. Mav 4. 1993. The Planning Commission considered specific changes
to the ordinance that. would allow harmers to he displayed 40 days per year.
In addition, the Planning Commission discussed changing the ordinance so
that an applicant could simply obtain an annual permit to allow display of
hanners which would include maintenance of it log identifving dates that
hanners tire displayed.
At this meeting, harry Nordman of the Monticello Vacuum Center and Ron
Chios of General Rental were the only members of the business community in
attendance. None of the individuals that applied for the original zoning
ordinance amendment were in attendance at this time. Planning Commission
expressed its concern that only two bUSlnl•ss owners were present. Planning
Commission agreed to continue the public hearing for another month and
directed City staff to notify the nine businesses that the issue will Ile discussed
again tit the next meeting of the Planning Commission.
Tuesdav-lune I, 1993, I'lannina Commission Meeline. Planning Commission
is prepared to review the proposal For amending the sign ordinance. Don
Crewe of Downtown Standard is lite only ntenihcr from the business
community present. Planning Commission asks Grewe to indicate if the
applicants would he satisfied with accepting it number of days for display at
a number less than 168 days but more (hall 20 days. Grewe indicated that its
for as he was concerned, the application stands as is and that. he requests that
the Planning Commission make its determination tensed on the request for 168
days.
After discussion, haled un Grew•e's request. Planning Commission
recommended that the City Council deny the application luised on the findings
JUS outlined in the Planner's report.
It. Al: ERNATIVP AC,rlllNS:
Sti where do we go from here? A, I sec it, City Council has three alternatives.
They are as follows.
Council Agenda - 6/14/93
Motion to adopt an ordinance amendment allowing display of hanners/
portable signs two weeks per month or 168 days per year, and modify
the ordinance to allow for an annual permit fee of $25 to cov: r
advertising and signage permitting fees.
Under the zoning ordinance amendmentas proposed by the nine
business owners, it business could place two banners of any size at any
location on the property for it period of up to 168 days. This level of
liberalization to the existing rules was not acceptable to the Planning
Commission. Again, its findings are haled nn the report prepared by
Steve Gritt.man. which Council should review for additional detail.
The Planning Commission was very much opposed to this alternative;
however, it did attemptto kook at creating it compromise position that
would he acceptable to the husiness owners. In addition, the Planning
Commission emphasized the importance of charging minimal p ennit,
fees. Planning Commission was very sensitive to the accusation of Irving
anti-husiness. At the same time, however, it was resislant to opening
such it wide door to display of hanners.
Finally, under this allernalive, achninisl ration of the permitting process
would be it very t.inte consuming and involved aft air, It would probably
make more sense to comph lely deregulate hanners than it would he to
try to administer the permitting process under this alternative.
2. Motion to approve an ordinance amendment which would allow hanners/
porl,ah[e signs to he displayed liar a nutxinuun period of 411 days per
calendar year and would amend the portable sign administration
process.
'['his is the alternative that Planning Commission was prepared to
consider its another alternal,ive had the businesses requesting the
antendinent pursued the matter further. Under this ithenutt.ive, the
increase in time allowed would go from 20 days to 40 days. According
to Planning Commission discussion in April, the commission would have
been comfortable with this increase, as it would not result in extensive
cluttering and is, therefore, consistent with the intent and purpose of
the sign ordinance.
Under this alternative, the ordinance and associated process for
administering the permitting process would he changed to require that
the applicant simply keep it daily Int; of banner use. From time to time
the Building Inspector could spot check Individual businesses to make
sure that. they acre documenting the days in which hanners/porlithie
signs tare displayed.
10
Council Agenda - 6/14/9,
A Cit;y-provided form would he used to ident.ifv the tyle of banner
displayed and document each day that the banner is up. Once a total
of 41i days has leen used, the banner can no lunger he displayed at the
location identified in the annual permit. Again, this alternative, though
discussed by the Planning Commission, was never adopted.
As a clarification to the existing ordinance, it. should he noted that the
ordinance provides for two permitting processes for special event signs.
One permitting process is for portable signs, which includes banners.
The other process includes permitting signs for decorative attention -
getting devices such as in(laWille balloons, pennants, etc. Attention -
getting devices are permitted on an individual event, basis for a
maximum period of 10 days with a minimum period of 180 days between
consecutive issuance of such permits for any property or parcel. There
are no changes proposed under this alternative that would affirct. the
regulation of"attention-gettingdevices," which again include such items
as search lights, streamers, spirals, pennants, etc.
tl. Motion to deny approval of zoning ordinance amendment that would
allow banners to he displayed 168 days a year and deny approval of a
zoning ordinance amendment. that would allow for all annual permit fee
of $25 to cover permitting costs associated with promotional signage
fees.
According Co Don Crewe. ncling ns the latest. representative of the nine
businesses, the group would like Council to act un the specific request.
The group is not interested in a compromise between the present
maxinuun of 20 days and the requested maximum of 168 days. In
response to this position, the Planning Commission recommended denial
of the zoning ordinance amendment.
The motion to deny the request should he based on the report provided
to the City by the City Planner.
STAFF HECOMMENDA'I HM:
Staff recommendation is consistent with the Planning Commission
recommendation. However, if Council was inclined to increase the number of
days from 20 to a higher number, it is our view that it would be reasonable to
increase the number ofdays to 411 and to chimge our niet.hod of permitting and
udminislering the ordinance by requiring that the business owner maintain it
lug showing the days that the signs are displayed. This will actually
streamline our present process for permitting signs.
W
Council Agenda - 6/14/93
Finally, the report provided to you above does not go into great detail
regarding the pros and cons of allowing banners, and it does not review the
numerous provisions within our ordinance regulating banners and temporary
signs. I urge you to review the ordinance in detail and note any problems you
might have with other aspects of the ordinance regulating banners. Perhaps
there is reason to rewrite other sections of the ordinance.
In summary, in response to business owners' requests, City stall, Planning
Commission, and the City Planner have made a conscientious effort toward
identifying ordinance amendments that would allow liheralization of the
restrictions on banners while controlling proliferation of hanners and
associated negative side elfect.�;. The process has been hampered by
inconsistent attendance by the interested business owners. Council needs to
determine to what extent it want-, to take the bull by the horns and adjust the
ordinance based on its emerging view of what's acceptable in terms ofbanners,
etc., or maintain the status quo by leaving the ordinance as is.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of report prepared by Steve Crittman regarding banners; Copy of possible
zoning ordinance amendment; Draft copy of permit form and log sheet;
Application for zoning ordinance amendment; Excerpt fnam sections of zoning
ordinance governing banners; F.xcrrpts from comprehensive plan; Excerpts
from various meeting minutes and agendas.
12
06/14,93 16:42 FAX 012 472 5991 u NMEST, INC. Q0U1
—Q -Midwest. Inc. dba TotalftrrN
2365 Cmumme Blvd. - Mound, MN 65364 • (612) 472-6921
DATE: Tuna 14, 1993
TO: city -Council Members
FROM: Dorothy K.S. Ritz, Sr. vice President
RE, Liberalization of Signing Ordinance
Dear City'CounoLL Members,
Thank for continuing the discussion regarding the revised signing
ordinance. My absence at the.City Council meetings has not meant
to Aigni.fy a lack of interest in the topic, as businesses in town
'have a lot riding on your final decision. My schedule ban simply
not allowed me to attend.
At the last meeting that I attended, the discusnion was trending
toward a 40 -day signing ordinance with an aymual one-time permit
fee. T would appnaciat* your consideration of an ndclitional option
rolativ* to the number of days:
A total number of days during the year equaling two (2) weeks
per month for our five (5) primary business months, May through
September (70 total days).
if Wi use thoso days conservatively, we would have days reserved
for the winter holidays.
I appreciate your concern for the overall appearance of the city
and know that you are trying to balance Ube needs of the businesses
along with the those of the community. This is a tough issue in
which to please a11 parties involved.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your
final docis n.
Respectful y,
L
cc: Eldor Jordan
Managur
Total Mart, Hwy 25
71FN Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
C U R B A N PLANNING- D E S I G N• MARKET RE SE ARCM
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jeff O'Neill
FROM: Stephen Grittman
DATE: 23 December 3.992
RE: Monticello - Temporary Sign Regulation
FILE NO: 19 1. 07 - 92.10
In response to recent discussions regarding the placement of
temporary signs, we have researched some of the rationale behind
sign regulations and how they apply to commercial sites
individually as well as commercial corridors. The City is being
faced with the dilemma of enforcement of illegal temporary signs on
one hand, and businesses' appeal for relaxation of regulations on
the other. The request for relaxed standards (such as elimination
of the time restriction on temporary banners), is based in the
concern over the ability to capture additional commercial traffic.
There are two issues which need to be considered in this analysis.
The most evident one is that of the general impact of adding sign
numbers and square footage to the commercial corridor streetecape.
The underlying issue, though, is that of ,the components of ret ail
site location, and how signs fit in with these components.
In considering retail location, it is important to understand how
businesses decide where to site themselves. F.W. Dodge, a real
estate construction industry publisher, has produced a manual
entitled "The Selection of Retail Locations" which lists eight
primary considerations. These are:
o Accessibility of Site
o Compatibility With Area
o Site Economics (Cost/Benefit)
o Cumulative Attraction with Area Businesses
o Competitive Facilities
o Growth Potential in the Trade Area
o Sign of Trade Area
o Business Interception
5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 555 • St. Louis Park. MN 55416 • (612) 595-9636. Fax. 595.9837
V d 'i
For existing businesses, many of these are either already set or
out of their control. The issue of trade area size (and growth) is
the primary factor in overall regional business opportunity. The
population and income levels of the community yield a set amount of
total expendable dollars. If a regulation serves to increase the
proportion of that total spent at a particular establishment, the
regulation concurrently serves to reduce it at another
establishment, albeit unintentionally. The community does not have
an additional dollar to spend at the store with the new sign. If
the store's proceeds increase, it is only because some other
score's proceeds decrease. In summary, the new sign regulation
does not create new spending, it merely redistributes it.
In looking at the list of site location factors, sign communication
would be a part of "Business Interception". This is the factor
over which an existing business may exercise the greatest amount of
control. Toward this end, the business community is lobbying for
greater leniency in signage allowances. One can debate whether or
not an increase in signage for a particular business relates to an
increase in sales for that business. However, we would argue its
impact is likely to be minimal. whereas occasional bumps in sales
volume may be attributed to specific advertising efforts, the
longer term viability of an establishment is controlled much more
by the eight factors stated above. This is intuitively apparent if
we think about the questions cities are asked by business people in
the investigation of a potential business location. These
questions always revolve around the location factors, and are
virtually never about the City's Sign Ordinance.
If the Ordinance were to be amended to allow additional signage,
what impact might this have? If a convenience store were to be
able to advertise a special on soft drinks, it may increase their
traffic temporarily. However, the concurrent decrease occurs down
the street at a second convenience store, and they add a sign to
counter the first. while the difference between Coke and Pepsi may
still increase each store's sales, a third store is now losing to
both, so they add a sign as well. Pretty soon, nobody has gained,
because everybody's got the same signs out. Add to this mix the
auto accessory stores, the fast food restaurants, the gas stations,
etc., etc., and all the corridor is left with is a cluttered
streetscape, but sales are back to their original levels. In fact,
the additional clutter can serve to actually reduce sales, since
the streetscape becomes unreadable. This also has obvious
ramifications for public safety, and the readability of the
necessary traffic control signage.
Finally, from a City enforcement standpoint, temporary signs
present possibly the greatest amount of headaches and expense.
Unfortunately, the greater the amount of temporary oignage the City
permits, the greater the monitoring requirements become.
we believe that the City's sign regulations are generally
sufficient and typical of coumcunity standards, and as such would
reconmiend minimal changes. In the event that the City is inclined
to grant additional signage allowances, we believe that permanent
sign increases are much more preferable than temporary signs. Such
signs are at least reviewable on a one-time, front-end basis and
require no further monitoring for enforcement staff.
Please let me know if you would like to discuss this issue further.
gds
Poss16le. Zone ord . amerldmcn
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA, HEREBY ORDAINS
THAT CHAPTER 3 OF 771E MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE BE
AMENDED BY AMENDING THE FOLLOWING SECTION PERTAINING TO
SIGNS. LANGUAGE DELETED IS UNDERLINED; LANGUAGE ADDED 1S
NOTED IN PARENTHESIS:
3-9: [C] 4 (a): An annual permit for portable signs, as defined herein,
shall be granted for a maximum period of twenty (forty)
days per calendar year. (As a condition of the annual
permit, applicant shall maintain a daily record of the use
of portable signs on a firm provided by the City.)
Adopted this _ day of , 199;1
Mayor
City Administrator
CITY OF MONTICELLO
ANNUAL PORTABLE SIGN/BANNER `T
APPLICATION/PERMIT FORM
The following information and associated form is used to assist City staff in adm inistering City regulations
ith regard to portable signs and banners. Please review the following information and complete the form
.ccordingly:
Each permit is valid for remaining length of the calendar year.
The "Applicant" is defined as the owner of the site on which the sign will be placed. Or, in the case of
multiple businesses located on one property, an npplicant is defined as each individual business. Also in
the case of multiple business location on one property, the Association of said businesses is eligible for an
annual permit. Each applicant !property) is limited to 40 days in which a portable sign/banner can be
displayed.
Below is a log sheet which must be used to identify actual days that a portable sign or banner is displayed.
For each day that a banner is displayed, a corresponding entry on the log sheet must be made. No contact
with city hall is necessary when changing banners. Simply identify each banner and the days displayed
throughout the course of the year.
This form must be kept in an accessible place and available for review by City staff at any time during
normal working hours. Failure to maintain an accurate log sheet may result in the City rescinding the
annual permit.
At such time that 40 days have been used or at the end of the year, please return this form or a copy of it
to City staff for our files.
♦��rtr�Yt�ttntllRr/r�t�Mrr�r��rt /e����rs�r���rrt�nr•
have reviewed city regulations pertaining to portable signs and banners. 1 recognize thnt this permit
allows me to display a portable sign or banner on my property for a maximum of 40 days per calendar year.
Furthermore, 1 hereby agree to maintain a daily account of the use of banners on my property. If 1 fail In
keep such an accounting, 1 will nut object to the City rescinding my permit, and I will not object to hnving
a City employee enter my property to remove bmaners or Iwrtable signs.
Applicant/Property Owner:
Address:
Phone Number: Date of Application:
Applicant Signature
••rr�r�rwr�♦•�����r�r���wr�����r�������r�rr���r r���rr��•
IRorCity Use Only)
THIS PERMIT IS APPROVED THIS DAY OF '19—.
aEE: $5.00
ECEIPT t City of Monticello
F • 1?
SIGNBAN.APP: 4/30193 Page I
DOF T
PORTABLE SIGN/BANNER LOG SHEET
Day Date Bannerlsign Uescriptton initial
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
38
40
SIG NBAN.APP: 30 -Apr -93
Tonina 0 rd ,
DATE: March 22, 1993
TO: City of Monticello
FROM: Country Kitchen of Monticello
Dave Henning, Owner
Por i 'r'- C IC
amerdmenf
Downtown Standard, 254 West Broadway
Don Grewe, Owner
Holiday Station Store, 107 West 7th Street
Mike Hanson, District Manager
Pump IN Munch, 318 West Broadway
Jay Clark, B.F. Distributing
Tom Thumb, I-94 6 Highway 25 S.
Jon Hanson, Owner
Total Mart, 398 Central Avenue E.
Dorothy Ritz, Marlin Basler, Owners
Total Mart, 1200 Highway 25 South
Dorothy Ritz, Marlin Besler, Owners
Vance's Amoco, I-94 S Highway 25 S.
Vance Florell, Owner
Westside Market
Thomas and Rebecca Holthaus , Owners
RE: Application for Modification of Signage Ordinance
(Application Form Attached)
Dear Members of the City Council and the City Planning Commission,
We respectfully submit the attached application for modifying the
city aigning ordinance. our request pertains to Section 2,
Prohibited Signs, Paragraphs b and h, under General Provisions on
page 3/41:
1. (b) Modify the ordinance to allow a permit for promotional
oignage for two weeks out of every month, OR, for a total of
168 days each year.
2. (h) Modify the ordinance to state that the promotional
oignago MAY bear an advertising message including
product and pricing.
3. Modify the ordinance to allow for an annual permit fee of
$25.00 to cover advertising oignago.
20,111,11 Cr f- Cli)�i7Cfi71Ei7f �l�
WV 3
k�t .-D-
Our reasons for requesting these revisions include:
1. Promotional signage has proven to be the most effective
advertisinrr mPdiam for competing for b"inccc =c, -,g
convenience stores.
2. The summer months are the most critical months for our
businesses.
3. Newspaper advertising does not attract vacationers that are
on their way to the cabin.
4. Trips to a convenience store or to a restaurant are not
often "planned purchases" as is often the case of a trip
to the super market to do weekly shopping, for instance.
5. Banners and portable signs are an effective means of
attracting repeat business and new customers.
6. A successful business in Monticello is good business for
the city and for its residents.
Thank your for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Monticello Businesses and Taxpayers
CI a
ZoAi� o rdin&Ve, ezeerp�
use permit. Such permit shall include as a condit?.on thereof
a plan for a finished grade which will not adversely affect
the surrounding land or the development of the site on which
the mining is being conducted, and route of trucks moving to
and from the site.
3-9: SIGNS:
(A] PURPOSE: This subdivision is established to protect and
promote health, safety, general welfare, and order
within the city of Monticello through the establishment
of a comprehensive and impartial series of standards,
regulations, and procedures governing the type, numbers,
J size structure, location, height, lighting, erection,
C needs -i 0 use and/or display of devices, signs, or symbols serying
as a visual communication media to persons situated
within or upon public right-of-ways or properties.
The provisions of this subdivision are intended to
U encourage opportunity for effective, orde
eoLA"?4S b2 communication by reducing con usi� on —and hazar ds
resulting from unnecessary and/or indiscriminate use of
camsf'SftntW t� communication facilities.
5 IoQ(? (B] PERMITTED AND PROHIBITED SIGNS:
`J1 1. PERMITTED SIGIS: The following signs are allowed
without a permit but shall comply with all other
applicable provisions of this subdivision:
(a) Public signs
(b) Identification signs: There may be one (1)
per premise not to exceed two (2) square feet
in area. If the sign is freestanding, the
total height may not exceed five (5) feet.
(c) Integral signs
(d) Political campaign signs: Shall not exceed
twelve (12) square feet in all other zoning
districts. Every campaign sign must contain
the name and address of persons responsible
for such sign, and that person shall be
responsible for its removal. Signe shall
remain in place for no longer than five (5 )
days after the election for which they aro
intended. All signs shall be confined to
private property. The City shall have the
right to romovo and destroy unsightly signs or
remove signs after the five (5) day limit and
assess a foe of five dollars (55.00) per sign
for removal.
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3/37
(e) Holiday Signs: Displayed for a period not to
exceed thirty (30) days.
(f) Construction Signs: Such signs shall be
confined to the site of the construction,
alteration, or repair, and shall be removed
within two (2) years of the date of issuance
of the first building permit or when the
particular project is completed, whichever is
sooner as determined by the City Building
Inspector or his agent. One (1) sign shall be
permitted for each major street the project
abuts. No sign may exceed fifty (50) square
feet.
(g) Individual Property Sale or Rental Signs:
Signs must be removed within fourteen (14)
days after sale or rental of property. Signs
may not measure more than four (4) square feet
in "R" districts, nor more than twenty (20)
square feet in all other districts. There
shall be only one (1) sign per premise.
Corner properties, however, may contain two
(2) signs, one (1) per frontage.
(h) Information/Directional Signs: Shall not be
larger than ten (10) square feet and shall
conform to the location provisions of the
specific district.
2. PROHIBITED SIGNS: The following signs are
specifically prohibited by this paragraph.
(a) Any sign which obstructs the vision of drivers
or pedestrians or detracts from the visibility
of any official traffic control device.
(b) Any sign which contains or imitates an
official traffic sign or signal, except for
private, on -premises directional signs.
(c) Any sign which moves or rotates. Exempt are
time and temperature information and barber
/ poles.
(d) Any sign which contains or consists of
banners, pennants, ribbons, streamers, strings
of light bulbs, spinners, or similar devices,
except in case of Subsection (C), Paragraph 4.
(e) Portable signs as defined in i below and other
attontion-getting devices as defined in iii -v
below, except as provided for in Subsection
(C), Paragraph 4.
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3/78
Portable signs shall be defined as an
advertising device not permanently
attached to a building, iacace, or
pylon. Portable signs include
electronic and non -electronic sign
boards on wheels, banners, as defined in
ii below, sandwich boards; hanging
placards, signs mounted on movable
standards.
ii. Banners shall be defined as fabric,
paper, vinyl, or similar material which
carries a specific message and which can
be hung on a wall, facade, awning,
canopy, suspension cable or wire, etc.
iii. Streamers /Pennants shall be defined as
flags, triangular pennants, spirals,
spinners, etc., attached in series to a
single cord or support line which is
then strung or suspended from point to
point.
iv. Inflated devices shall be defined as
inflatable devices which may be
stationary or airborne (but tethered)
which are intended to attract attention
to a specific location or site.
V. Searchlights - self defining. .
(Amendment No. 150)
(f) Signs which are attached in any manner to
trees, fences, utility poles, or other such
permanent supports, except for those signs
found on fences (inside) of baseball parks.
(g) Advertising signs of 200 square feet or more
in place on or before June 23, 1980, and which
are the principal use of the lot of record as
of the above date and which have an agreement
on file with the City on or before August 23,
1980, in the form so designated by the City
Administrator, which is signed by the prop arty
owners and the advertising sign owners and all
signatures notarized, may continue as a non—
conforming use until such timo as the lot of
record above is dovolopod or improved, in
which case, the non -conforming advertising
sign must be romovod within 60 days after
written notice from the Building Official .
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3/39
(h) Advertising signs as defined in Chapter 2 of
this ordinance of 199 square feet or less in
area, except tnat those signs which were in
place on ar before 8/15/75 may continue as a
nor. -conforming sign.
(i) No sign shall display any moving parts, nor
shall it be illuminated with any flashing or
inte=ittent lights, nor shall it be animated.
Exempt are time and temperature information
and barber poles. All displays shall be
shielded to prevent light to be directed at
on -coming traffic in such brilliance as to
Impair the vision of any driver. No device
shall be illuminated in such a manner as to
interfere with or obscure an official traffic
sign or signal.
(j) Roof Signs.
(k) Overhanging Signs.
(C) GENERAL PROVISIONS:
1. All signs shall comply with Maintenance Section 5-
305 of the 1970 Edition of Volume V of the Uniform
Building Code as promulgated by the International
Conference of Building Officials.
2. When electrical signs are installed, the
installation shall be subject to the City's
Electrical Code.
3. No signs other than governmental signs shall be
erected or temporarily placed within any street
right-of-way or upon any public lands or easements
or right-of-ways.
4. The temporary use of portable signs, decorative
attention -getting devices, and searchlights shall
require an annual or daily permit.
(a) An annual permit for portable signs, as
defined herein, shall be granted for a maximum
period of twenty (20) days per calender year.
The applicant shall determine and specify on
the application the days planned for display,
i.e., twonty consecutive days, ten weekends,
.� etc.
C.
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3/40
(b) A permit for decorative attention -getting
devices shall be issued for a maximum period
Of ten (10) days with a minimum period of one
hundred eighty (180) days between consecutive
issuance of such permits for any property or
parcel .
(c) All portable signs and attention -getting
devices must be well maintained and kept in
good repair at all times. The Building
Official shall order the immediate removal of
any device considered to be damaged or in poor
condition. Non-compliance shall be just cause
for revocation of the permit without refund.
(d) All portable signs and attention -getting
devices shall be allowed only on the property
or site where the business or enterprise is
situated. No placement shall be allowed on
public rights-of-way.
(e) All portable signs and attention -getting
devices shall be on ground level except that
banners and streamers may be affixed to a
building, facade, permanent pylon sign, or
other permanent fixture. Airborne inflatable
devices shall be tetherod on site.
(f) Not more than two (2) portable signs shall be
displayed at the same time.
(g) Not more than two (2) attention -getting
devices shall be permitted to be displayed in
conjunction with any portable sign.
(h) A decorative attention -getting device may bear
the name of the business, but shall not bear
any service, product, price, etc., advertising
message.
(i) Permit fees shall be set by the City Council
and shall be payable upon application for said
permit.
(Amendment No. ISO)
(j) Public banners may be hung from city stroet
light fixtures for a period of up to one (1)
year. Design and placement of the public
banners shall be consistent with the following
standards:
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 7/41
Design and placement of public
sign/decorative banners must first be
approved by the City Council and
annually thereafter. Prior to Council
consideration, applicant shall submit a
banner placement plan which shows
proposed banner design, size, pole
location/elevation, duration, and
proposed manner by which the banners
shall be hung. Banner placement plan
shall also describe financing sources
for purchasing and installing public
banners.
Public banners may be hung from parking
lot light fixtures or from other
structures on private property only in
conjunction with a City Council approved
public banner system. Except for
requirements outlined in section 4.(j)
of this ordinance, said banners are
exempt from sign regulations. The City
shall not participate in financing any
portion of the cost of public banners
placed on private property. City crews
may assist with the installation of
public banners placed on private
property if compensated at actual cost
to install banners.
3. Except for Christmas banners, all
banners shall contain an element of the
City colors and/or City logo. No
private advertising may be allowed on
any banner hung in conjunction with a
public banner system.
4. Public banners hung from streetscape
fixtures shall be no larger than 14" by
43". Banners hung from standard street
lights shall be no larger than 28" by
80".
S. Public banners shall not be hung in a
position that will cause a substantial
obstruction of visibility from the
street to advertising, traffic, and
directional signs and shall not be hung
in a position so as to interrupt corner
sight linos.
6. Public banners may be hung only on
alternate strootocape fixtures unless
otherwise approved by Council.
MONTIC&I.LQ 20N G
Banners placed on City fixtures shall
become the property of the City. If
damaged or in need of repair, banners
may be removed by City staff. The
public banner system may be
discontinued, and all banners, including
those on private property,- may be
ordered removed at the discretion of the
City Council.
The bracket system used to hang banners
shall be of sufficient strength to
withstand strong winds and shall be
designed in a manner that allows easy
installation and removal of banners.
5. All signs shall display in a conspicuous manner the
owner's name, permit number, and date of erection.
6. All height restrictions on signs shall include
height of sign structure.
7. In any district, any portion of any sign exceeding
two ( 2 ) square feet shall be set back fifteen ( 15 )
feet from any right-of-way line and ten (10) feet
from any residential (zoned) property line.
8. Any sign now or hereafter existing which no longer
advertises, or identifiers a bona fide business
conducted, or a service rendered, or a product
sold, shall be removed by the owner, agent, or
person having the beneficial use and/or control of
the building or structure upon which the sign may
be found within ten ( 10) days after written notice
from the Building Inspector.
9. The City of Monticello or its agent is authorized
and required by this ordinance to enter into an
agreement with the United States or any of its
agencies or departments to the end that the
objective stated in Title 23, United States Code,
Section 131, Section 319, or any other applicable
federal statute to obtain non -conforming signs
along the Great River Road within the city of
Monticello. However, the City of Monticello or its
agent shall not be required, nor allowed, to expend
funds for the acquisition of nonconforming signs
or advertising devices under this chapter until
federal funds in the amount of 751 or more to his
acquisition cost aro made available to the City of
Monticello for the purpose of carrying out this
ordinance. No sign nor advertising device legal
under Laws 1971, Chapter 883, shall be required to
be removed or relocated until payment, as provided
in Laws 1971, Chapter 883, is tendered by the City
of Monticello .
MONTICELLO
Comp fi larL �cc4rp+
COMMERCIAL POLICIES
1. Commercial development in general and successful retailing
!unctions should occur bot
h in rhe central business district and
thA shnooinc center area cont'_tuous to Inter
2. The Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and other measures
and procedur-R w111 0: modified in realistic re;ognition of the
needs of contemporary commercial enterprises and the need to
properly control such enterprises at the local community level;
comGercial development policy will not be rigid and inflexible,
and neither shall it be indiscriminately permissive.
3. Adequate provision should be made for expansion of suitable
areas for highway oriented comrercial development requiring
large acreages for use such as motels, auto and implement
dealerships, and lumber and building supply yards. These uses
should be encouraged to develop in new locations along
Interstate 94 at Highway 25.
4. The location of new shopping areas should be justified by an
adequate market study (market radius, customer potential,
suitable location in the market radius, etc.) and consideration
for the neighborhood, land use, and circulation pattern.
S. Commercial areas should be as compact as possible. Compact
commercial areas are particularly advantageous for retail uses,
as they concentrate shopping and perking. A community is
benefited by reducing exposure to residential areas and having a
better control over parking and traffic needs. Foc this reason,
'strip' and "spot* commercial development should not be
permitted.
6. Highway oriented uses along interstate 94 should be concentrated
to the greatest extent possible so as not to waste prime
commercial land nor spread the uses so as to not be definable as
a 'viable commercial area*.
7. Futuro commercial areas should be based upon the concept of the
integrated business cantor developed according to a specific
site plan and justified by an economic analysis of the area to
be served.
B. All major commercial areas shall be pre -toned based upon the
Comprehensive Plan. No areas shall be re -zoned to c®eccial
use unless they are shown to be properly located in accordance
with the policies and standards of the Comprehensive Plan.
9. Boundaries of commercial districts shall be well-defined so as
to prevent intrusion into residential areas; residential areas
must be properly screened from the associated ill effects of
adjacent and nearby commercial area.
-46-
.'f
community. The communi.1 goals a:e preferences as to: (1) the
general type of community that future pnysical development should
he'_p produce; and (2) the character and location of the major
physical elements forming the urban a^:::onment.
BAfore the Comprehensive Plan can b_ into effect, these
community goals must be stated clearly and general agreement on them
must be reached. Otherwise, the plan cannot be conceived of as the
community's policy concerning physical development. Investigating
community attitudes and formulatinq a publicly acceptable statement
of broad community goals is a basic past of the planning process. A
.goal* is a desired objective to be reached.
1. To develop and emphasize Kanticello as a eommun ity that can
offer the advantages of being nes: a metropolitan area for the
enjoyment of major cultural, sports, and business assets and yet
be completely and distinctly separate from the metropolitan area
and its suburbs_
2. To encourage steady, careful growth by maintaining reasonably
high standards.
3. To utilize the inherent advantages of the community in terms of
location, existing population, scnool system, available land,
etc., to gain tha best possible advantage from these assets so
as to develop a reputation as a community cauolning all the
desirable elements for living in Kinnesota.
6. To develop the City according to an officially adopted
C.omprehensive Plan for land use, transportation, and community
facilities. while the plan should not be inflexible, neither
should it be amended indiscriminantly.
S. To develop urban land uses according to a set of uniform
standards applicable to the City. Such s tandarda should govern
land use, public improvements, health conditions, safety
features, aeathetic considerations, and other elements of the
urban environment for purposes of safeguarding the public
health, safety, convenience, and general welfare.
6.6. To maintain a public image wh�anads7t�ruct
ncicollo with
excellence In planning, desigquality.
7. To coordinate local plana with those of the school district,
adjacent and nearby communities, and others, to essential to the
well-being of local residents.
B. To develop a sound and broad tax bane for the City and the
school district is essential in order to provide revenue for
adequate public facilities and aervicer without creating undue
burdono upon property owners.
9. To base all development decisions upon compliance with the City
Plan, appropriate planning methods and procedurea, and
dovolopment otandards that help to aaauro the beat pcocibla
results within the realm of oconcmic and legal feasibility.
_78_1 j.1
Planning Commission Agenda • 5/41N11 -
Consideration of a zoning ordinance amendment which would allow
a permit for promotional signage/banner for 2 weeks out of every
month. or a total of 168 days a vear. AND
Consideration of a zoning ordinance amendment that would allow
promotional signaae/banner to hear an advertising message. including
product and pricing. AND
Consideration of a zoning ordinance amendment that would allow for
an annual permit fee of $25 to cover permitting costs associated with
promotional signnee fees. Applicant. 9 local businesses. (J.0.)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As you recall, at the previous regular meeting of the Planning Commission, the
Commission directed City staff to prepare an ordinance amendment that would
allow promotional or advertising banners to be displayed for a period of 40
consecutive days versus the present limit of 20 consecutive days. In addition,
it was the view of the Planning Commission that the permitting fee should be
changed from $5 per permit to $.5 per permit or $25 per year, whichever is less.
Planning Commission directed staff to adjust the zoning ordinance in
accordance with the suggested changes above.
Following is a review of each ordinance amendment request followed by
suggested action.
CONSIDERATION OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT THAT
WOULD ALLOW PROMOTIONAL SIGNAGE/BANNER TO BEAR AN
ADVERTISING MESSAGE, INCLUDING PRODUCT AND PRICING
After closer review of the ordinance, it was discovered that this amendment is
unnecessary because a banner which carries a specific message is permissible.
According to our ordinance, a banner, when reviewed and approved as a
portable sign in conjunction with the proper permitting process, is defined as
"fabric, paper, vinyl or other similar material which carries a specific message
and which can be; hung on a wall, facade, awning, canopy, suspension cable or
wire, etc."
The confusion around this issue results from language under the general
provisions section of the ordinance which states that a decorative attention -
getting device may "bear the name of a business but shall not bear any service,
product, price, etc., or advertising message." Under the special permitting
process, a banner is not considered an attention -getting device. It is
considered to be a portable sign. Therefore, a specific message can he placed
on a banner, and there is no need to amend the ordinance.
d/
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/4/93
CONSIDERATION OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT THAT
WOULD ALLOW FOR AN ANNUAL PERMIT FEE OF $25 TO COVER
PERMITTING COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PROMOTIONAL SIGNAGE
F E JES
Under the present ordinance, there is a one-time annual fee of $5 to cover the
20 -day period proposed for displav of the portable signs/banners. It is
suggested that no changes be made to this particular requirement, which
requires that a business owner submit a single application for a portable sign
or banner.
The current ordinance requires that an application form be used to identify
particular times of the year that the portable sign will be in use. Obviously,
it may be difficult for a business owner to say exactly when and how long each
banner will be displayed during the 40 -day period allowed.
It is proposed that the ordinance and associated process for administering the
permitting process be changed to require that the applicant simply keep a
daily log of banner use. From time to time, the Building Inspector can spot
check individual businesses to make sure that they are documenting the days
in which the sign is displayed. The form would be used to identify the type of
banner displayed and document each day that the banner is up. Once a total
of 40 days have been used, the banner can no longer he displayed at the
location identified in the annual permit.
As a clarification to the existing ordinance, it should be noted that the
ordinance provides for two permitting processes for special events signs. One
permitting process is for portable signs, which includes hawsers, and the other
process includes permitting for decorativeattention-gettingdevices. Attention -
getting devices are permitted on an individual event basis for a maximum
period of 10 days with a minimum period of 180 days between consecutive
issuance of such permits for any property or parcel. There are no changes
proposed that would affect this provision. Attention -getting devices, of course,
include items such as search lights, streamers, spirals, pennants, etc. The
permit process for this type of advertising would remain unchanged.
CONSIDERATION OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT WHICH
WOULD ALLOW A PERMIT FOR PROMOTIONAL SIGNAGEBANNER
FOR 2 WEEKS OUT OF EVERY MONTH OR FOR A TOTAL OF 168
DAYS A YEAR
This heading is the original request submitted by the applicants. The
Planning Commission reviewed this request at the previous meeting and
indicated that it made more sense to simply increase the number of days that
a banner or portable sign would be allowed. As you can see in the attached
amendment to the zoning ordinance, a simple change was inserted which
increases the number of days allowed for display of a banner from 20 days to
40 days.
Planning Commission Agenda - 6/4/93
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Motion to approve an ordinance amendment which would allow portable
signs to be displayed for a maximum period of 4U days per calendar year
and would amend the portable sign administration process.
Under this alternative, Planning Commission is comfortable with the
proposed increase in the amount of time available for display of banners.
Planning Commission is comfortable that the increase as proposed will
not result in excessive cluttering and is consistent with the intent and
purpose of the sign ordinance.
It should he noted that husinesses such as Marquette Bank Monticello
have 40 days available for banners and portable signs. Other
organizations using the property as a site for their sign will be reducing
the days available for the bank itself to display banners, etc. In the
past, we have been granting 20 -day periods for any organization to have
a portable sign at any site. By limiting each site to 40 days, the City
can eliminate the use of certain properties as a permanent location for
serial temporary signs.
Motion to deny approval of proposed zoning ordinance amendment.
Under this alternative, Planning Commission is not comfortable with
the proposed amendment and takes the view that increasing the amount
of time available for banners will result in an undue proliferation of
banners and will diminish the value of the existing sign system and will
not result in added benefit to commercial enterprise.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
City staff recommends that the Planning Commission increase the amount of
time available for banners and portable signs; however, we are not certain that
doubling the amount of time available is appropriate. We would prefer that
the increase be somewhat less than 40 days. We also feel that we can develop
a method for monitoring the use of banners and portable signs through
development of a permit form that must he kept up to date by businesses using
banners and spot checked by the Building Inspector. Finally, we believe that
the changes as proposed by staff are the only amendments necessary to
accomplish the goals as identified by the business owners. Finally, the
proposed amendment will apply to portable signs and banners only. The
provisions for limiting attention -getting devices to no more than 10 consecutive
days is not changed by the ordinance amendment as proposed.
1). SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of proposed ordinance amendanent; Copy of banner/portable sign permit
form. Please see agenda supplement provided with previous regular meeting
agenda.
F-11
Planning Commission Agenda%
3. Public Hearing --Consideration of a zoning ordinance amendment
which would allow a Permit for promotional sianage/hainner for two
weeks out of every month or for a total of 168 days a vear. AND
Consideration of a zoning ordinance amendment that would allow
Promotional sienage/banner to bear an advertisine messaee, including
Product and Pricing. AND
Consideration of a zoning ordinance amendment that would allow for
an annual permit fee of $25 to cover Permitting costs associated with
promotional sienaee fees. Aaalicant. 9 Local Businesses. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The proposed zoning ordinance amendments have been submitted by a group
of nine local businesses that utilize signage as a key component of their
advertising efforts. The first request would amend the zoning ordinance by
allowing promotional signage or banners promoting an individual product to
be in place for a period of 2 weeks out of every month or for a total of 168 days
a year. Currently, decorative attention -getting devices such as "promotional
banners" are allowed to be displayed for a maximum period of 20 days per
year.
The second request would allow promotional signage to bear an advertising
message, including product and pricing. Currently, decorative attention -
getting devices such as banners may bear the name of the business but shall
not bear any service, product, price, etc., advertising message. From a
technical standpoint, banners identifying Diet Coke, $2.99 for a 12 -pack would
be in violation of the ordinance, even under the 10 -day banner time limit. The
City has never, to the best of my knowledge, enforced this provision of the
ordinance.
The final request would allow for an annual permit fee of $25 to cover the
permitting process. Currently, a Special permit fee of $5 is charged for each
permit that is issued. Please see their application for specific reasons they
point to supporting the need for the amendments.
RECENT HISTORY
Following is it brief review of meetings and conversations relating to this topic
that have occurred over the past few months.
November 12. 1992
On November 12, 1992, Jeff O'Neill, Gary Anderson, and Steve Grittman,
representing the City of Monticello, met with Rick Pribyl of Tom Thumb,
Dorothy Ritz of Total Mart, and Tom Holl.haus of West Side Market. The
4'' `/
Planning Commission Agenda - 4/6/93
meeting was called due to routine enforcement action of the sign ordinance by
Gary Anderson. In response to the enforcement of the sign ordinance, Dorothy
Ritz requested that City staff review the sign ordinance and discuss possible
changes to the ordinance that would allow display of temporary signs and
banners for more than 20 days per year as currently allowed by ordinance.
At this meeting, City Planner, Steve Grittman, noted that the City of
Monticello ordinance is typical with regard to its treatment of temporary signs
and banners. He noted that all the cities he works with do not allow banners
or temporary signs except by special permit in conjunction with a special event.
Cities maintain a prohibition against temporary signs because allowing them
to be displayed would relinquish all control of banners. As nice as promotional
banners may be, once you allow them, you have no control. The City cannot
regulate the type of banner, aesthetics, messages, etc.; therefore, allowing a
banner to promote Pepsi that is sold on a weekly special would also allow a
downtown merchant to use a banner to advertise his place of business. it
would also allow all types of print styles and qualities of banners, some of
which could result in visual blight.
Grittman suggested that as an alternative, the convenience stores should
utilize changeable type on an existing pylon sign system. The message board
would be integrated with the total allowable sign area and would not represent
an addition to the sign area allowed.
At this meeting, O'Neill also reviewed policies followed by other communities.
He noted that in the cities that he contacted, in almost all cases banners are
prohibited. He noted, however, in Coon Rapids, two temporary signs are
allowed so long as the total square footage of each sign does not exceed
12 sq ft.
Dorothy Ritz's primary request was to allow a 30 -sq ft temporary sign to be
allowed on a full-time basis. She noted that if this would not be possible, it
would he reasonable to allow temporary signs to be displayed for a period of
two weeks per month. O'Neill and Grittman noted the difficulty in
administering this type of program for allowing temporary signs. Tracking
which signs have been up for the maximum period and which signs have not
would create an administrative nightmare.
It was the consensus at the meeting that Ritz would prepare an outline of her
request, and City staff would outline the pro's and con's of three basic options,
which would include 1) no change to the existing ordinance, 2) liberalization
of the existing ordinance to allow for more special events, days, or longer
special event periods, and 3) allow 30 sq ft temporary signs or banners to be
placed on display at any business at any time. It was also the consensus of the
group to bring this sign issue before the Planning Commission in the form of
o workshop.
''I
Planning Commission Agenda - 4/6/93
December 1. 1992
On December 1, 1992, the Planning Commission reviewed the existing
ordinance regulating temporary banners and signs and was asked to consider
calling a public hearing to amend the present ordinance. Information
regarding the pro's and con's of liberalizing the regulations governing banners
was provided. Lively debate ensued, which can be reviewed in the attached
excerpt from the meeting minutes.
At the conclusion of this agenda item, it was the consensus of Planning
Commission to have City staff research further portable signs and banners in
surrounding communities and some metro communities and return to the
Planning Commission with a formal list of alternatives. It was noted at that
meeting that the Planning Commission would discuss the item again in detail
at their next meeting.
January 5. 1993
As directed by the Planning Commission, City staff prepared additional
information relating to the subject matter, a copy of which is attached for your
review. Included in the packet is a detailed review of the pros and con's of
liberalizing rules governing use of temporary banners as prepared by City
Planner, Steve Crittman. I urge you to review this document closely.
Unfortunately, the individuals present at the previous Planning Commission
meeting elected not to attend the meeting of January 5. Planning Commission
did review the recommendation made by Steve Crittman. It was the consensus
of the Planning Commission to leave the current sign ordinance in effect until
a petition for an ordinance amendment is received. In addition, it was
requested that the record reflect the Planning Commission's disappointment
that the commercial owners/property managers relating to this topic were
absent.
In an effort "spare further repetition of comments already made, l would like
to direct your attention to the previous material submitted to you on this topic
and cut directly to the alternatives.
D. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Motion to modify the ordinance by allowing a permit for promotional
signage/banner for o period of 2 weeks of every month or for a total of
168 days a year; and modify the ordinance to state that the promotional
signage may bear an advertising message, including product and
pricing; and modify the ordinance to allow for an annual permit fee of
$25 to cover advertising signage.
Planning Commission Agenda - 4/6/93
Under this alternative, Planning Commission is satisfied that the
proposed zoning ordinance amendment would be consistent with the
intent of the sign regulations, which is to "encourage the opportunity for
effective, orderly communication by reducing confusion and hazards
resulting from unnecessary and/or indiscriminate use of communication
facilities."
The zoning ordinance amendment could also be based on a finding that
the proposed amendments are consistent with the comprehensive plan;
specifically, item #2 on page 48 states that the "zoning ordinance and
other measures and procedures will be modified in realistic recognition
of the needs of contemporary commercial enterprises and the need to
properly control such enterprises at the local community level.
Commercial development policy will not be rigid and inflexible and
neither shall it be indiscriminately permissive."
Planning Commission needs to review the request in terms of this
particular policy and determine whether or not the proposed
amendments are consistent or inconsistent with this section of the
comprehensive plan. If you determine that the proposal is consistent
with the comprehensive plan, then such a finding should be cited in
your motion.
If the applicants have demonstrated that there is a need for the
amendment as outlined in the attached application, then this finding
should also he cited in your motion.
Under this alternative, the number of permits for temporary signs will
increase significantly. The administrative problem of permitting and
tracking these requests will be significant. As noted by Steve Crittrran.
it would be easier for the City to simply increase our sign area allowed
or allow banners to be displayed on a permanent basis than it would be
to monitor promotional banners as would be required under the
proposed ordinance.
Finallv. the amendment as proposed does not glace anv limits on size or
location of the promotional banners. No definition is in place to set
limits: therefore. nparoval would allow businesses to displav nnv banner
of nnv Alae for 168 days a Year.
2. Motion to approve one or a combination of the proposed zoning
ordinance amendments as identified under alternative #1.
Motion to deny the proposed zoning ordinance amendments. The denial
could be based on a combination of the following findings:
V" ,i
Planning Commission Agenda - 4-/6193
The proposed zoning ordinance amendment is not consistent with
the comprehensive plan.
On page 38, item #5, a goal of the community is to develop urban
land uses according to a set of uniform standards applicable to
the city. Such standards should govern land use, public
improvements, health conditions, safety features, aesthetic
considerations, and other elements of urban environment for the
purposes of safeguarding the public health, safety, convenience,
and general welfare.
A strung case could be made that allowing banners and
temporary signs to proliferate would be detrimental to the public
welfare, as it is impossible to control banner design and content,
which would have a negative effect in terms of aesthetics.
Furthermore, motorist safety would be diminished by the
presentation of cluttered and confusing streetscape.
In addition, approval of the proposed ordinance may not be
consistent with goal b6 on page 38, "which is to maintain a public
image which associates Monticello with excellence in planning
and design and structural quality." Although some communities
may not strictly enforce their ordinance regulating banners, no
other communities have liberalized the use of banners as
proposed; therefore, it appears that the standard we have now set
is consistent with Monticello's striving for excellence. Therefore,
to diminish this standard would not be consistent with this goal.
2. The Planning Commission could make the finding that the
proposed zoning ordinance amendments are not consistent with
the intent of the regulations governing signs, as the purpose of
the sign ordinance states that the sign ordinance is intended
"to encourage opportunity for effective, orderly
communication by reducing confusion and hazards
resulting from unnecessary or indiscriminate use of
communication facilities."
To allow proliferation of banners as proposed would fly in the face
of this general purpose.
Perhaps the zoning ordinance amendment could also be denied
based on a finding that allowing proliferation of banners and
associated increase of sign area and loss of control of sign design,
etc., could serve to reduce the overall effectiveness of existing
signage and, therefore, result in a negative impact on other
properties within the commercial zoning districts.
gag
Planning Commission Agenda - 4/6/93
Another finding to consider is whether or not the need has been
sufficiently demonstrated. A finding could be made that existing
sign area allowed is sufficient to advertise both the business and
products. Therefore, there is no need to increase sign area
allowed by making banners/promotional signs allowable 168 days
a year.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff is firmly recommending that Planning Commission deny the
proposed zoning ordinance amendment request. All evidence indicates that to
allow proliferation of banners as proposed is not consistent with the city
comprehensive plan or zoning ordinance; therefore, the request should be
denied. The purpose of temporary banners and promotional signs is to provide
a short-term change in scenery that attracts the attention of the consumer. If
the amount of time allowed for banners is increased, the function of the banner
as an attention -getting device is diminished. If this ordinance is adopted, one
has to ask what a business is going to do to attract attention to itself for a
special event when it already is using banners during one-half the year. At
some point, the City needs to hold the line on allowing banners. Perhaps a
small increase to the existing maximum time allowed for display of banners is
warranted; however, staff definitely believes that the amendments as proposed
should be denied.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Application for zoning ordinance amendment; City Planner comments; Meeting
minutes and agenda excerpts of 11/12/92, 12/1/92, 1/5/93; Excerpts from the
comprehensive plan; Excerpts from the sign ordinance and proposed
modifications.
Planning Commission Minutes - 1/5/93
10. Review of city ordinance regulating banners and consider calling a Dublic
hearine on the ordinance amendment that would allow greater use of
temoorary signs/banners.
No one was present from the public to discuss this item.
Steve Grittman explained that for retail business, using an additional sign
doesn't influence most business traffic, and it also takes away from the
business. Additional signage using banners has two problems—it doesn't affect
additional business activity and is an enforcement headache.
Grittman suggested that a compromise would be to promote additional
permanent signage and not additional temporary signs.
The consensus of the Planning Commission members was to leave the current
sign ordinance in effect as is until a petition for an ordinance amendment is
received.
Planning Commission would like the record to reflect that it is disappointed
that there were no commercial owners/property managers in attendance at this
meeting.
C�19
Planning Commission Agenda - 1/5/93
10. Heview of city ordinance regulating banners and consider calline a
public hearing on an ordinance amendment that would allow greater
use of temporary signs/banners. (J.0.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
At the previous meeting of the Planning Commission, the Commission
reviewed the existing ordinance regulating banners and directed staff to
research the matter further. In response to this request, staff directed the City
Planner to provide a written memo on the subject.
It is the view of staff that this subject does not merit further study unless the
Planning Commission or private party actually requests a zoning ordinance
amendment.
Except for the planner's report, the balance of this report is simply a repeat of
the previous supplemental data.
Planning Commission is asked to review the existing ordinance regulating
temporary banners and signs and consider calling a public hearing to amend
the present ordinance. This request is in response to concerns brought forward
by Dorothy Ritze, the operator of the Total Mart stores. Please review the
attached memo for more background information regarding this topic.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Review the matter and take no action.
Under this alternative, the Planning Commission is comfortable with
the ordinance as it now exists. Dorothy Ritze would have to submit an
application for an ordinance amendment in order for the Planning
Commission to consider the matter further.
Under this alternative, Planning Commission is comfortable with the
present ordinance which allows for a total of 20 days per year that a
business is allowed to display a temporary sign.
2. Motion to call for a public hearing on an ordinance amendment which
would allow greater use of temporary signs by providing for more special
events or longer special event periods.
Planning Commission Agenda - 1/5/93
Under this alternative, Planning Commission would be taking the
position that the City needs to maintain control over banners and
temporary signs; however, there is room for extending the period that
banners and temporary signs can be used.
Under this alternative, Planning Commission should establish in detail
how many additional days should be allowed. City staff would then
draft an amendment to the zoning ordinance accordingly. This issue
would then be brought before the Planning Commission at a public
hearing in January.
3. Motion to call for a public hearing on an ordinance amendment that
would allow "full-time use of banners and temporary signs."
Under this alternative, Planning Commission is comfortable with
allowing banners to be used on a regular basis in addition to the
existing signs which are already allowed by ordinance. As noted in the
memo, Dorothy Ritze would like to have a 30 sq ft banner to be allowed
on site at all times.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission select alternative Al or
alternative 112. As noted in the attached memo, there are no cities that we
know of that allow full-time use of banners in addition to their existing sign
systems except for the City of Coon Rapids, which allows temporary signs on
a very limited basis. Staff would like to emphasize that as nice as promotional
banners may be, once you allow them you have no control. The City cannot
regulate the type of banner, aesthetics, or messages; therefore, allowing a
banner to promote Pepsi that's sold on a weekly special would also allow a
downtown merchant to use a banner to advertise his place of business. It
would also allow all types of print styles and qualities of banners, some of
which could result in visual blight.
Adding signage at a rate of 30 sq ft per property would serve to detract from
the effectiveness of the signs already in existence and, therefore, diminish the
value of the signs presently in place. The sign ordinance should not be
amended because its limitations currently protect individual businesses from
what a neighboring business aught do.
14
Planning Commission Agenda - L5/93
Dorothy Ritze also suggested that, as a compromise, perhaps temporary signs
could be displayed for a period of two weeks per month. Although this is a
nice compromise, administration of this restriction would be very difficult, if
not impossible.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Memo from Steve Grittman of Northwest Associated Consultants dated
12123/92; Memo dated 1L12/92 regarding potential amendments to the section
of the sign ordinance relating to banners; Pertinent sections of the ordinance
regulating signs; Copy of agenda item from 1211/92 Planning Commission
agenda.
Planning Commission Minutes - 12/1/92
3. Review city ordinance resrulating banners and temoorary sisms.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reviewed the request to review the
casing crdin=ce rc.-ular ng temporary bon -c— and sig and to consider
calling a public hearing to amend the present ordinance.
O'Neill explained that under the current regulations, banners are allowed for
10 consecutive days, then after a 130 -day waiting period, an additional 10
consecutive days is allowed per calendar year.
Portable signs are allowed for 20 total days in a calendar year.
O'Neill reported that there are no cities that we know of that allow full-time
use of banners in addition to their existing sign systems except for the City of
Coon Rapids, which allows temporary signs on a very limited basis. He
emphasized that as nice as promotional banners may be, once you allow them
you have no control. The City cannot regulate the type of banner, aesthetics,
or messages; therefore, allowing a banner to promote Pepsi that's sold on a
weekly special would also allow a downtown merchant to use a banner to
advertise his place of business. It would also allow all types of print styles and
qualities of banners, some of which could result in visual blight. Adding
signage at a rate of 30 sq ft per property would serve to detract from the
effectiveness of the signs already in existence and, therefore, diminish the
value of the signs presently in place. Planning Commission should study this
issue carefully before making any changes. It may not make sense to amend
the ordinance because the rules currently protect individual businesses from
what a neighboring business might do.
O'Neill outlined the alternatives for the Planning Commission to consider as
follows:
Review the matter and take no action.
Motion to call for a public hearing on an ordinance amendment which
would allow greater use of temporary signs by providing more special
events or longer special event periods.
3. Motion to call for a public hearing on an ordinance amendment that
would allow full-time use of banners and temporary signs.
Acting Chairperson, Cindy Lemm, then opened the public hearing.
Dorothy Ritze, part owner of the Total Mart stores, explained her reasons for
requesting an update to the present zoning ordinance to allow additional time
per calendar year for the use of banners and temporary signs. Banners and
temporary signs are used as a promotional tool to attract the public Erom the
highway, which is a major portion of their business. She also suggested that
Planning Commission consider a temporary interim period for the use of
banners and portable signs.
l� �
Planning Commission Minutes - 1211/92
Kevin Olson, :.tanager of Westside Market, explained that a convenience store
attracts business by drawing the public from the highway for the products in
the store.
Don Grewe, owner of Downtown Standard, feels that the ordinance is too
restrictive in allowing a portable sign for only two weeks per calendar year.
Dorothy Ritze explained that the banners the City currently has up puts across
an effective message, which the City is using for the promotion of the city of
Monticello.
Patty Olsen, realtor with Edina Realty, asked if the convenience stores have
used up their maximum pylon and wall sign square footage? City staff
responded that they have used all of their existing wall and pylon sign square
footage allowances.
Dorothy Ritze explained that purchasing a reader board or message center type
of sign is fine but very expensive, in the neighborhood of $2,700 just to have
a small fastbank sign at their business. It is proposed to have one installed
at their business.
The manager of the Pump N Munch convenience store questioned why
additional signage for items such as lottery tickets, a promotional banner, copy
machine service, or a specific product inside the store could not also be allowed
on their building.
Richard Carlson questioned what is the City's ultimate goal by regulating the
use of portable signs and banners. Staffs response was that the ultimate goal
is to have a banner and portable sign ordinance in place that can be effectively
administered by City staff.
Carlson also commented, from a business standpoint, that it makes sense to
regulate signage within a commercial business. Too much signage distracts
from the overall appearance of the establishment.
The consensus of the Planning Commission members was to have City staff
research further portable signs and banners in surrounding communities and
some metro communities and return to the Planning Commission with a formal
list of alternatives.
To review the information provided and take no action.
2. Consider the information presented, select the proposed
alternatives for an ordinance amendment, and call for a public
hearing at the next regularly scheduled meeting in February.
Page 3
Planning Commission Agenda - 12/L92
Iteview city ordinance regulating banners and temoorary signs. IJ.OJ
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Planning Commission is asked to review the existing ordinance regulating
temporary banners and signs and consider calling a public hearing to amend
the present ordinance. This request is in response to concerns brought forward
by Dorothy Ritze, the operator of the Total Mart stores. Please review the
attached memo for more background information regarding this topic.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Review the matter and take no action.
Under this alternative, the Planning Commission is comfortable with
the ordinance as it now exists. Dorothy Ritze would have to submit an
application for an ordinance amendment in order for the Planning
Commission to consider the matter further.
Under this alternative, Planning Commission is comfortable with the
present ordinance which allows for a total of 20 days per year that a
business is allowed to display a temporary sign.
2. Motion to call for a public hearing on an ordinance amendment which
would allow greater use of temporary signs by providing for more special
events or longer special event periods.
Under this alternative, Planning Commission would be taking the
position that the City needs to maintain control over banners and
temporary signs; however, there is room for extending the period that
banners and temporary signs can be used.
Under this alternative, Planning Commission should establish in detail
how many additional days should be allowed. City staff would then
draft an amendment to the zoning ordinance accordingly. This issue
would then be brought before the Planning Commission at a public
hearing in January.
Motion to call for a public hearing on an ordinance amendment that
would allow "full-time use of banners and temporary signs."
Planning Commission Agenda - 12/1/92
Under this alternative, Planning Commission is comfortable with
allowing banners to be used on a regular basis in addition to the
existing signs which are already allowed by ordinance. As noted in the
memo, Dorothy Ritze would like to have a 30 sq ft banner to be allowed
on site at all times.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission select alternative #1 or
alternative #2. As noted in the attached memo, there are no cities that we
know of that allow full-time use of banners in addition to their existing sign
systems except for the City of Coon Rapids, which allows temporary signs on
a very limited basis. Staff would like to emphasize that as nice as promotional
banners may be, once you allow them you have no control. The City cannot
regulate the type of banner, aesthetics, or messages; therefore, allowing a
banner to promote Pepsi that's sold on a weekly special would also allow a
downtown merchant to use a banner to advertise his place of business. It
would also allow all types of print styles and qualities of banners, some of
which could result in visual blight.
Adding signage at a rate of 30 sq ft per property would serve to detract from
the effectiveness of the signs already in existence and, therefore, diminish the
value of the signs presently in place. The sign ordinance should not be
amended because its limitations currently protect individual businesses from
what a neighboring business might do.
Dorothy Ritze also suggested that, as a compromise, perhaps temporary signs
could be displayed for a period of two weeks per month. Although this is a
nice compromise, administration of this restriction would be very difficult, if
not impossible.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Memo regarding potential amendments to the section of the sign ordinance
relating to banners; Pertinent sections of the ordinance regulating signs.
NLENIO
TO: Topic File
FROM: Jeff O'Neill. Assistant Administrator'?
DATE: November 12, 1992
RE: Potential amendments to the section of the sign ordinance relating to
banners
A meetin; was conducted on November 12, 1992, at 9 a.m. Individuals attending
included Rick Pribyl of Tom Thumb; Gary Anderson; Dorothy Rice of Total Mart;
Tom Holthaus of West Side Market; Steve Grittman, City Planner; and Jeff ONeill.
Jeff O'Neill reviewed the history behind the reason for calling the meeting. In his
review, he stated that Gary Anderson had been doing routine enforcement of the
banner section of the sign ordinance. In response to City enforcement action, Dorothy
Ritze requested that the City staff review the sign ordinance with her and discuss
possible changes to the ordinance that would allow display of temporar-y signs and
banners for more than 20 days per year as currently allowed by ordinance. ONeill
noted that since the first meeting, City staff had conducted research regardias other
city ordinances and discussed the matter with the City Planner,
Steve Grittman of Northwest Associated Consultants noted that the City of
Monticello ordinance is typical with regard to its treatment of temporary signs and
banners. All of the cities that he works with do not allow banners or temporary signs
except by special permit in conjunction with a special event Grittman noted that
cities maintain this prohibition of temporary signs because allowing them to be
displayed would relinquish all control of banners. He noted as nice as promotional
banners may be, once you allow them, you have no control. The City cannot regulate
the type of banner, aesthetics, message, etc.; therefore, allowing a banner to promote
Pepsi that's sold on a weekly special would also allow a downtown merchant to use
a banner to advertise his place of business. It would also allow all types of prints,
styles, and qualities of banners, some of which could result in visual blight Grittman
suggested that as an alternative, the convenience stores utilize changeable type on
an existing pylon sign system. The message board would be integrated with the total
allowable sign area and would not represent an addition to the sign area allowed.
O'Neill reviewed policies followed by other communities. He noted that in almost all
cases, banners are prohibited. He reviewed the Brooklyn Center, Elk River, Mound,
Coon Rapids, and Anoka ordinances. He stated with one exception, banners and
temporary signs are prohibited. In Coon Rapids, two temporary signs are allowed so
",,,
41emo
Temporary Signs & Banners
November 12. 1992
Page 2
long as the total square footage of each sign does not exceed 12 sq ft. A third sign
is also allowed without a permit so long as it is under 12 sq ft in sign area. If the
third sign is over 12 sq ft in sign area, then it must be no larger than 32 sq ft and
can only be in place for a period of 14 days.
Steve Grittman also noted that the City can regulate for maintenance and movement.
He went on to note that the general purpose of the restriction on banners and signage
is to maintain an adequate amount of sign area. Adding signage at a clip of 30 sq ft
per property would serve to detract from the effectiveness of the signs already in
place and, therefore, diminishes the value of the sign system overall. The sign
ordinance is intended to protect individual businesses from what the neighbor might
do.
Dorothy Ritze stated that she would like the City to consider creating a new category
of signs which would allow signs to be used for individual product promotions.
Grittman again noted that it would be difficult to single out a product sign versus a
sign advertising a business, as the City cannot regulate the content of the sign.
Dorothy Ritze's primary request was to allow a 30 sq ft temporary sign to be allowed
on a full-time basis. She noted that if this would not be possible, it would be
reasonable to allow temporary signs to be displayed for a period of 2 weeks per
month. O'Neill and Grittman noted the difficulty in administering this type of
program for allowing temporary signs. Tracking which signs have been up for the
maximum period and which signs have not would create an administrative
nightmare.
As the discussion concluded, it was the consensus that Dorothy would prepare an
outline of her request, and City staff would outline the pro's and con's of the three
basic options, which include 1) no change to the existing ordinance; 2) liberalization
of the existing ordinance to allow for more special events, days, or longer special
event periods; and 3) allow 30 sq ft temporary signs or banners to be placed on
display at any business at any time.
O'Neill noted that he would be preparing an outline for the agenda item and would
contact Steve Grittman if he needed further assistance.
After discussion, it was the consensus of the group to bring the sign issue before the
Planning Commission in the form of a workshop setting. Notice of the workshop will
be provided to convenience store and fast food business operators. The information
would be presented at the December meeting of the Planning Commission.
Council Agenda - 6/14/93
to- Consideration of authorizing installation of electronic scoreboards at
NSP hallfields orlon$ with associated vendor and Baseball Association
agreements. I lt.1V.1
A. Ith;b'h RVISICP AND BA(!KGROUND
At the previous Council meeting, Mr. Roger Pribyl, representing the Monticello
Bamball Association, requested Citv Council al)proval for installing a vendc,r-
supplied electronic scoreboard at the basehall field in the NSP complex. In
addition, M r. Prihyl had requested permission to seek advertising sponsorship
to cover the cost of three additional scoreboards for the remaining three
soflhall fields that would cost approximately $1.0(N) each. The proposed
concept was to sell advertising space to line or two advertisers to cover the
$1,000 cost per scoreboard.
Council did authorize the Baseball Association to acquire the larger 14 -ft X 5 -Il
scoreboard from Viking Coca-Cola provided (.here was no coal. to the City and
that an agreement he prepared to outline the conditions governing size of
advertising space that would he sold, length of advertising agreement,
maintenance provisions concerning electronic scoreboard and advertising signs.
In addition, the Parks Commission wits directed to review the request for it
recommendation.
Parks Commission met. .lune 'l to review the request and offered two
alternatives for funding the three scordloards that were not going to he
donated by Viking Coca-Cola. The first. allernative suggested by the Parks
Commission would he to have Ute Baseball Association request that the City
budget in the parks department fior the inst.crllolion of the three scorcloards
in 1994, This would eliminate the need for advertising revenue and would lie
funded by city I axpayers. Tho second alternative suggested would Ili, to allow
the MHA to sell two advertising sponsorships per scoreloard as long its the
advertising size was consislent with the scoreboard. h was recommended that
the City own the scoreboards immediately upon installation and that
moinlemincealso he the requirement of the City.
Enclosed with the agenda is an outline of the possible conditions the Council
muv want to have in all agreement wit h the MITA if the City is going to allow
construction and installation of the additional scoreboards. Areas That need
to Ik addressed ore whether (lie MHA should he responsible fur maintenance
of rhe scorebmtrds or whether it will ultimately Ix- the City resp insihility. The
Council should remember that there are hundreds of individuals associated
with the various soil lull and haseb;ll programs, and it is anticipated that
Council Agenda - 6/14/93
there could he it number of problems in maintaining elect runic scoreboards and
related equipment. Although the MITA has agreed to he responsible for
maintenance, the Parks Commission has suggested the City just assume
maintenance, as it will probably ultimately he responsible anyway.
As was noted by Mr. Pribyl at the previous meeting. Viking Coca-Cola will
supply the larger scoreboard free of charge provided the City and/or M13A
enters into an agreement guaranteeing Viking Coca-Cola certain righhs during
a five-year terns. Basically, Viking Coca -Cala wants to ensure that only Coke
products are sold in the concession stand, but their proposed agreement also
outlines a few other areas that I have concerns with. Mainly. Viking Coca-
Cola wants assurances that their scoreboard is maintained on the premise for
at least five years or someone will have to compensate Viking Coca-Cola for the
value of the scoreboard on it pro -rated basis for the remainder of the five-year
contract. From the City's standpoint., I think we would lie hotter off having
this provision read, "If the scorchoard is removed from the property, it has to
he given hack to Viking Coca-Cola." I would hate to he stuck reimbursing
Viking Coca -Coln for something that maybe does not operate properly but tics
us Ua it five -Year commitment.
Another area of concern in Viking Coca-Cola's agreement is their right to
advertise in and about the complex and concession sUmd For the five years. It
was my understanding that Viking Coca-Cola would only use the name Coca -
Colo, possibly in the concession stand, but this secl.ion of the agreement could
also mean that they have the right, to place signs anywhere they feel like
within the ballpark complex.
Assuming thatit suitable agreement is reached with Viking Coca-Cola
concerning the larger sign they wish to donate, Council certainly has the option
of seeing how this one scoreboard operates before authorizing the other three
smaller scoreloards to he purchased.
It. ALTERNATIVE, ACTIONS
The first alternative would he to nllow the larger scoreboard to lie
donated by Viking Coca-Cola and installed at an cost to the City with
the MBA responsible for maintenance. Since the sign would he donated,
the Council could decide whether to allow advertising sponsorship to he
sold and whether the funds should he paid to the MIIA or to the City
directly to he used fear other park improvements. Also, this niternntive
assumes the Viking Coca Cola ogreoment, is wdisfmctury as proposed.
14
The reconimendaLion of the Parks Commission is to allow the scoreboards but
to have the laity become the owner an(I also respamsihle for muintemance.
From the stairs standpoint, maintenance of four electronic scmmhoards could
hecome quite a problem cost -wase find w'athoot having any history tea go by fire
uncertain ns to the maintenance cost to expect.. Since the MRA did originally
agree to maintain the scoreboards, lossihly the Oily should arrange for tiny
maintenance hug require the Al RA for reimhursement of any cost. we incur.
'Phe stall -does Ixliovo that the Viking Coca-Cola agreement should he modified
to clarify areas covering Viking Coca-Cola's right to advertising at the complex
find the City's respunsihilily tier paying hack the pro -rated cost of the
scorehards if they are not used or noint.ained properly. From it budgeting
slmullxii ill. there may lie other improvements that him, higher priority al the
halt field if funds were limited. If the laity was going to ffnnnce the scoreboards
and ongoing mainlemnev, we may have had other improvements more worlhy
of ttaxlgayers dullurs.
1). SUIT OICI ANG I)A'I'A:
Viking ( loca-Coln agreement; Exhihil outlining proposed ngreement het.ween
MRA and Citv; Alinutes of forks Commission concern iry( scurclonrd
instadlut_ion. ,�J {
J '\
dal
�v, S•c , �, . �r .
Y Council Agenda - 6/14/83
'l.
The second alternative would he similar to the first to allow only one
scoreboard at the present lime antler the conditions outlined between
Thu h111A mid the City and also provided Viking; Ciwo-Cola, is in
1
agreement with the revised context of their agreement. The revisions
to the Viking Coca-Cola agreement should indicate that, advertising is
n(vt nlluwed except within the concession stauul huilding and that if the
scoreboard is not used during Life five years, the sign would be returned
w -i thuut additional compensation.
3.
Allow the donation oflhe larger scorchoard from Viking Gaeta -Cala find
ttuthuri-re the HILA to sell advcrt.ising spmfsorship for the purchase of
Three additional 4 -ft. \ 8 -ft. scoreloards. The nelvert,ising size and terms
would lie according to the A1RA figrecment with lifeCityoutlined in the
exhihit. In addition, the Coca -Eula agreement. would IK altered to
clarify where advertising can Luke place on the grounds fmd the City's
obligation if Ole scurehoards are not used for the entire five years.
C.
STAFF RE(Y)MMENIIA'I'Il1N:
The reconimendaLion of the Parks Commission is to allow the scoreboards but
to have the laity become the owner an(I also respamsihle for muintemance.
From the stairs standpoint, maintenance of four electronic scmmhoards could
hecome quite a problem cost -wase find w'athoot having any history tea go by fire
uncertain ns to the maintenance cost to expect.. Since the MRA did originally
agree to maintain the scoreboards, lossihly the Oily should arrange for tiny
maintenance hug require the Al RA for reimhursement of any cost. we incur.
'Phe stall -does Ixliovo that the Viking Coca-Cola agreement should he modified
to clarify areas covering Viking Coca-Cola's right to advertising at the complex
find the City's respunsihilily tier paying hack the pro -rated cost of the
scorehards if they are not used or noint.ained properly. From it budgeting
slmullxii ill. there may lie other improvements that him, higher priority al the
halt field if funds were limited. If the laity was going to ffnnnce the scoreboards
and ongoing mainlemnev, we may have had other improvements more worlhy
of ttaxlgayers dullurs.
1). SUIT OICI ANG I)A'I'A:
Viking ( loca-Coln agreement; Exhihil outlining proposed ngreement het.ween
MRA and Citv; Alinutes of forks Commission concern iry( scurclonrd
instadlut_ion. ,�J {
J '\
Viking Coca-Cola Bottling Company
BUSINESS AGREEMENT
This agreement, made this day of May 1993 by and between
the Monticello Baseball Association and Viking Coca-Cola Bottling
Co. of St. Cloud, MN.
Upon the considerations of the mutual covenants hereinafter made
to be performed by all of the parties hereto, and upon other good
and legal considerations, it is agreed as follows:
1) Monticello Baseball Association agrees to give the
advertisers, namely Viking Coca-Cola, the right to advertise
in and about the complex and concession stand for the period
of 5 years. (1993 - 1997)
2) Monticello Baseball Assn will acknowledge the receipt of one
(1) Electro -Meth Baseball Scoreboard -Model SS168 (approximate
cost $1,500.00). This scoreboard along with any additional
scoreboards to be located at Monticello Ballparks during the
term of this agreement shall have prominent Coca-Cola
identification on the faces of the scoreboards.
3) Pricing for the product for 1993 season will be as follows:
a) Premix soft drinks - $9.00 a tank & deposit.
b) Cups - 12oz cups 2.5¢ each or $2.50 a tube 100 ct.
c) Co' Gas - $6.50/201b.
Pricing for 1994-1997 seasons will be consistent with 1993.
Viking Coca-Cola does not anticipate any radical coat
increases. Only normal inflationary price increases will be
passed through to the softball association.
4) Monticello Baseball Assn. shall be responsible for all repair
and maintenance for these scoreboards that is not covered by
manufacturers warranty. Monticello Baseball Aeon. shall
maintain hazard insurance to cover these boards in the event
of natural disaster. In vandalism or natural disaster,
Monticello Baseball Asan. is aware that the boards, along
with Coca-Cola identification, shall be replaced in original
condition, or Viking Coca-Cola will be compensated for the
boards on a prorata basis for the remainder of the contract
life.
c0:0crate ottices N
Bo. 806 WSt C'Oud, Minne%Cta 56302
1 612 251 4602 •-�--� �—
Viking Coca-Cola Bottling Company
Page 2 - Business Agreement / Monticello Baseball Assn.
5) For the above considerations, the Monticello Baseball Assn.
grants to Viking Coca-Cola Bottling Co. the following rights:
1) Viking Coca-Cola will be the sole supplier of soft
drinks, mineral waters and juice based beverages, at
all events with all concessionaires.
2) Viking Coca-Cola will retain ownership of all
dispensing equipment provided to the Monticello
Baseball Assn. to sell Viking Coca-Cola products.
6) General and miscellaneous:
This instrument constitutes the entire agreement between the
parties hereto and shall be binding upon their heirs,
executors, administrators, legal representatives, successors.
and assigns. This agreement may not be amended or altered in
any manner except in writing signed by both parties. No
forbearance to exercise any rights or privilege under this
agreement or waiver of any breach of any of its terms,
rights, or privileges, but the same shall continue and remain
in full force and act the same as if no forbearance of waiver
had occurred.
7) This agreement shall be interpreted under and governed by the
laws of the state of Minnesota. If any provision to any
person or circumstance is held to be invalid or
unenforceable, the remainder hereof and the application to
other persona or circumstances shall remain valid and
enforceable.
MONTICELLO BASEBALL ASSOCIATION
Authorized Representative
Witness
Jf
VIKING - CO 5 Zc7 NO
—Authorriizze�d Repr ative
,.
Witness
Date
Date
COMPANY /
Szr%9�
to
pi 793
Date
D
EXHIBIT B
PROPOSED CHANGES TO VIKING COCA-COLA BUSINESS AGREEMENT
It is recommended that prior to entering into an agreement with Viking Coca-Cola,
a few changes he made to their proposed agreement.
Item NI in their pnipused agreement should be amended to clarify that Viking
Coca-Cola would be allowed the right. to advertise Coca-Cola products within
or on the concession stand only for the period of five years. Advertising at
other locations within the Lomplex would be prohibited.
2. Item A2 in the agreement should also be clarified that additional scoreboards
provided by Viking Coca-Cola shall be allowed to display Coca-Cola
identification on the faces of the scoreboards. The present agreement strictly
stated that any additional scoreboards located within the ballpark shall be
allowed to display Coca-Cola when they may not have been originally supplied
by Viking Coca-Cola.
3. 1 believe a clarification should he mnde to item #4 which requires the MITA or
the City to reimburse Viking Coca-Cola on n pro -rated basis for the value of
the sign if we du not nointain it or keep it on the site for the full five years.
Possibly this should he amended to only return the sign rather than pay for
any, pro -ruled basis.
SCOHEBHD.CHG: GN vsa `in
EXHIBIT I
SCOREBOARD INSTALLATION AGREEMENT
This agreement, made this _ day of .lune, 1993, by and between the Monticello
Baseball Association and the Citv of Monticello. outlines the conditions governing the
installation and maintenance of electronic scoreboards by the Monticello Baseball
Association within the NSP hallfield complex owned by the City of Monticello.
It is agreed by both parties as follows:
1. The Monticello Baseball Association is authorized to raise revenue needed to
purchase three additional scoreboards through Viking Coca-Cola by allowing
the name of an advertising sponsor to be attached to the scorehoard.
2. The maximum sign area allowed for an advertising sponsor shall not be larger
than a 2-R X 8-11 area.
3. Original sponsorship funds forohtaining the scoreboard shall entitle advertiser
to a five-year term at which time the original advertiser may he given the
opportunity to renew sponsorship on an annual basis at a rate to be
established by the City. Additional revenue raised by renewals shall be used
for ballfield improvements.
4. The Monticello Baseball Association agrees to he responsible for all scoreboard
maintenance and repair cross. If the necessary repairs and maintenance are
not performed by MRA within n reasonable amount of time, the City shall
complete repairs and hill the M13A for cost.
5. The Monticello Baseball Association shall be initially responsible for
construction of the advertising sign, and the advertising sponsor shall be
responsible for ongoing maintenance and upkeep throughout the five-year
term. Failure to maintain the advertising sign after notification by the City
will result in the advertising sign being removed.
6. The City of Monticello agrees to enter into an agreement with Viking Coca-
Cola allowing them to he the exclusive supplierof soft drinks, mineral waters,
and juice -based beverages at the NSI' ballfield concession stand. This would
cover a terns of five years through 1997.
7. The MBA agrees to he responsible fir installation of all scorehoards, with
installation methods approved by the City of Monticello Public Works
Department.
MONTIC ELLO BASEBALL ASSOCIATION CITY OF MONTICELLO
Authorized Representative Authorized Representative
SCO HE13 RD.AG R: 6/10/9-1