Loading...
City Council Agenda Packet 10-11-1993AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Monday, October 11, 1993 - 7 p.m. Mayor: Ken Maus Council Members: Shirley Anderson, Brad Fyle, Clint Herbst, Patty Olsen Call to order. 2. Approval of minutes of the special meeting held September 9, 1993, and the regular meeting held September 27, 1993. 3. Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints. 4. Consideration of a resolution supporting Monticello Rotary Club efforts to establish social and economic ties to the City of Dungannon, Northern Ireland. 5. Consideration of a variance request to allow a building addition onto a non- conforming structure in a rear yard setback requirement. Applicant, Gene Jestus. 6. Consideration of preliminary plat of the Monticello Commerce Center 1st Addition. Applicant, Monticello Industrial Park, Inc. 7. Consideration of preliminary and final plat approval of Point Minnie. Applicant, Stuart Hoglund. Plat size and location: 3.5 acres consisting of 4 lots, I of which includes the site of the Comfort Inn of Monticello. 4 8. Consideration of an amendment to Chapter 16 of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance which would permit use of a temporary structure not to exceed 700 sq ft as an accessory use on an interim basis. Applicant, Community United Methodist Church. 9. Consideration of request by abutting property owner to construct a fence around undeveloped West 4th Street --Jim Eisele. 10. Consideration of amendment to Chapter 3-5 1 DI 9 (f) of the Monticello 7Aming Ordinance which would allow curb cut widths in commercial and industrial districts to exceed a width of 24 ft at the discretion of the City Engineer and Zoning Administrator. 11. Consideration of transient merchant ordinance amendment. 12. Consideration of approving renewal of Joint hire Department contracts with Silver Creek Township and City of Otsego. 13. Consideration to adopt a Central Minnesota Initiative Fund's Sponsoring Unit of Government Resolution on behalf of The H -Window Company. 14. Consideration to adopt a Central Minnesota Initiative Fund's Sponsoring Unit of Government Resolution on behalf of Standard Iron & Wire Works, Inc. 15. Adjournment. MINUTES REGULAR MEETING • MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday, September 27, 1993. 7 p.m. Members Present: Ken Maus, Shirley Anderson, Brad Fyle, Clint Herbst, Patty Olsen (arrived during discussion on item p4) Members Absent: None 2. Consideration of approval of minutes of the regular meeting held September 13, 1993. After discussion, a motion was made by Brad Fyle and seconded by Shirley Anderson to approve the meeting minutes as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Citizens comments/netitions, requests, and complaints. A representative from the Minnesota Community Forest Program, presented the City with a plaque recognizing the City for its efforts to maintain an urban forest program. The plaque recognizes Monticello for being designated as a "Tree City." p Public hearing for the application of fundine to the State of Minnesota for The, H -Window Comvanv, and consideration to adopt the resolution of applicant. Citv of Monticello. 011ie Koropchak requested that City Council conduct a public hearing associated with an application for funds to be provided by the State of Minnesota, channeled through Montice:lo and offered to The H -Window Company to assist in funding a portion of the expenses associated with the expansion of The H -Window Company. Koropchak noted that the amount funded through the state program is $400,000. If the state approves the requested grant, the City will receive the grant and, in turn, provide the funds to the H -Window Company as a loan. The City has the right to retain the first $100,000 principal and interest payback while the state retains the remaining $300,000 principal and interest payback. Koropchak stated that it is recommended by City staff Council approve the $400,000 loan structure with an interest rate schedule designed to assist The H - Window Company in the first critical years of the company's growth and expansion. Interest rate schedule is proposed as follows: Years 1.2 0% Year 3 2% Year 4 3% Year 5 4;h Year 6.10 6% Page 1 (2) Council Minutes - 9/27/93 Brad Fyle asked who is paying for the cost to apply for the state funds? 011ie Koropchak responded by saying that the funds necessary to pay the cost to apply for the loan will be derived from the revenue received by the City when H -Window pays back the loan which was originally funded by the State. Brad Fyle mentioned that he continues to be opposed to the use of tax increment financing funds for expansion. Businesses already located here will expand on their own due to the benefits that this area provides in terms of location on the freeway, work force, etc. Fyle also noted, however, in this case, since State funds do not originate from Monticello yet a portion of the loan money is paid back to the City for future loans, this is an excellent deal. Ken Maus mentioned that this company could have easily moved rather than expand in Monticello. The expansion will create 60 new jobs that may have gone elsewhere if the City had not provided TIF assistance that any other would have provided. Shirley Anderson concurred that the City can't pass up an opportunity to encourage expansion of an existing proven business. There being no further comments, Ken Maus closed the public hearing. After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Clint Herbst to adopt a resolution authorizing the City Administrator to submit a Community Development application on behalf of the City of Monticello to the Department of Trade and Economic Development and approve the recommended loan terms. Motion carried unanimously. SEE RESOLUTION 93-35. Public hearing and the, consideration to adoot a resolution rglatina to the modification of the Redevelonment Plan for Redevelooment Proiect No. 1. the modification of the clans for Tax Increment Financine Districts Nos. 1.1 through 1-12 and Tax Increment Financing Districts Nos. 1-14 through 1- 15. and the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for TIF District No. 1-13 (Standard Iron and H -Window TIF plan amendments). 011ie Koropchak asked that Council consider approval of an amendment to TIF District No. 1-7 (H -Window), which will increase the district budget by $126,000. H -Window will be expanded by 25,600 sq ft and office space by 4,000 sq ft, resulting in the creation of 60 new jobs. Page 2 �> Council Minutes - 9/27/93 Council is also asked to approve creation of TIF District 1-13 (Standard Iron). Budget for District 1-13 totals $334,000 and calls for $311,000 in pay-as-you-go TIF assistance for land right, town, and site improvements. The TIF plan is based on construction of a 48,000 sq ft facility, 32,000 sq ft manufacturing space, and 16,000 sq ft office space. Final site plan shows a 52,000 sq ft facility. The project will result in creation of 65 jobs in the first year and 115 within 3 years. Rusty Demeules, president of Standard Iron, was present to describe the type of manufacturing that Standard Iron is involved in. He noted that this facility will he constructing components used in construction of farm implement equipment and other machinery. He also noted that it is expected that in 5 years there are plans for a 30,000 sq ft addition to the structure which would result in a total employee base of 200. After discussion, a motion was made by Clint Herbst and seconded by Patty Olsen to adopt a resolution relating to modifications of the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1, the modification of the plans for TIF Districts Nos. 1-1 through 1.12 and TIF Districts Nos. 1.14 through 1-15, and the approval and adoption of the TIF Plan for TIF District No. 1-13. Motion carried unanimously. SEE RESOLUTION 93-36. 6. Continuation of public hearine on Proiect 93-09C- Allev Improvements. John Simola reported that the public hearing was continued to today's date due to the previous lack of bids for the project. We have now obtained bids for the work and have put together a list of properties with proposed costs for each property. At the same time, we have received information from land owners adjacent to the alley that would like to see additional work done in conjunction with the alley improvements. The work proposed by the adjacent property owners would make the project less of a patch job and could involve replacing portions of existing parking areas. Simola summarized the situation by saying that there is support for the project but not as it is presently designed and suggested that since the project as designed doesn't seem to address the needs of the local businesses, perhaps a committee could be formed to improve the design. At this point in the meeting, Ken Maus closed the public hearing. After discussion, a motion was mads by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Brad Fyle to establish a committee for the purpose of preparing an improved plan for reconstruction of subject alleys and associated improvements. Motion carried unanimously. Page 3 Council Minutes - 9/27/93 Consideration of storm sewer imnrovements for Monticello Ford John Simola reported that since there is no storm sewer system leading from the Ford property other than the Highway 25 ditch, Monticello Ford is faced with needing a large drainage pond on the south end of their property near the Hart Clinic, or they must construct a storm sewer from the south end of the property over to the pond in Sandberg South. If they construct a pond on their property, they are using valuable property that could be used for expansion of their business in the future. If they build and pay for a storm sewer system leading to the Sandberg South pond, they would have to pay 100% of that cost and would have to share the cost of an outlet to be constructed in the future. The estimated cost of constructing the storm sewer connection is $35,000. Including all contingencies and indirect costs, the cost could be $46,700. Simola went on to report that Dave Peterson is seriously considering requesting that the City complete this improvement project with the cost of the project being assessed back to his property. According to Assistant Administrator O'Neill, Peterson is willing to pay 10'7, of the cost of the project up front with the balance of the cost assessed against his property to be paid back over a period of 10 years at the prevailing interest rate. It was the consensus of Council that the terms proposed by Peterson as outlined by O'Neill were acceptable. After discussion, a motion was made by Brad Fyle and seconded by Shirley Anderson to authorize the installation of storm sewer by change order on the Hart Boulevard project or authorize the City Engineer to develop full plans and specifications and bid the project, whichever is found to he the least expensive, and grant Monticello Ford the right to stop the project in the event the bid amounts exceed an acceptable level. Motion carried unanimously. Consideration of accentine convevance of tax forfeiture parcel from Wright Countv--former Gille Auto nrouertv. Rick Wolfsteller requested that Council consider taking ownership from the County to expedite cleanup of the site, which includes building demolition, underground fuel tank removal, and soil contamination cleanup through the Minnesota Petrofund. Wolfsteller suggested a number of conditions associated with accepting ownership from the County. Clint Herbst noted that taking ownership of this property has some risk. What if contamination on site is in excess of what is expected? The costs to clean it up could rocket up. Ken Maus responded by saying that the site evaluation that was recently completed has given us a good understanding of the problem. Even if a bigger problem is discovered once the cleanup Page 4 \ 0- I Council Minutes - 9/27/93 begins, the City exposure is 10% of the additional cost with the Petrofund paying the rest. Clint Herbst emphasized that he supports the cleanup; however, we should recognize that there are risks. Ken Maus concurred that there are some unknowns, but the risks in accepting the property is not excessive. Brad Fyle indicated that he would like to see it cleaned up; however, he felt that the penalty and interest that the County requests to he paid before conveying the property to the City should be forgiven by the County. In this situation, the City is taking the initiative and the risk associated with cleaning up the site; therefore, the County should consider forgiving the penalty and interest. After discussion, a motion was made by Clint Herbst and seconded by Brad Fyle to agree to ownership of the property at no cost under the following conditions: a. After cleanup, City can sell the property and keep sufficient funds to cover all out-of-pocket costs. b. Remaining funds will be applied to the County expenditures. C. If there are any remaining funds, they will be applied to the delinquent taxes of approximately $11,300 without delinquent penalty and interest of approximately $9,000. d. Any funds remaining after the above expenditure reimbursements would he the City of Monticello's. e. If the City did not seek sufficient funds to cover its own out-of-pocket expenditures, the County would agree to split any additional expenditures on a 50/50 basis. In addition, City staff is directed to determine whether or not new bids need to be obtained for the work associated with cleaning up the site. If new bids need to be obtained, staff is authorized to seek new bids. Motion carried unanimously. Consideration of chnnee order q4 to the vehicle storage building. Proiect 92- 06 John Simola reported that all the work from Monticello vehicle storage building has been completed with the exception of painting. Painting was attempted last fall; however, cold weather hampered the operation A portion of the exterior painting was not the proper thickness. Portions of the building were painted the wrong color. Still other portions of the Page 5 0 Council Minutes - 9/27/93 building were painted during sub -freezing temperatures, which does not comply with the manufacturer's application specifications. The painting contractor agreed to prime the building and repaint the entire building and provide a 3 -year extended warranty for $11,304. After several months of negotiation, the painter's insurance company agreed to pay damages in the amount of $11,304 so that the building could be repainted. The insurance company requested that they make payment to the City of Monticello, as we were the owners of the building. Consequently, in order to pay Rochon Corporation the $11,304 for the painting that was completed, we must do so through the change order process. Change order 44 has been developed for that purpose. After discussion, a motion was made by Brad Fyle and seconded by Patty Olsen to approve change order #4 in the amount of $11,304. Motion carried unanimously. 10. Consideration of change order #1, the trunk storm sewer extension and appurtenant work to Hart Boulevard. Citv Proiect 93-06C. John Simula reported that the Hart Boulevard Sturm Sewer Project is well underway and should be completed in the near future. The City Engineer and Contractor, LaTour Construction of Maple Lake, have requested that we modify the payment units for rip rap from the cubic yard to the square yard. There will be no increased cost to the project for making this change. Secondly, during the excavation through the existing parking lot, a large pile of buried demolition was uncovered consisting mainly of large pieces of concrete and Steel rebar. These materials were removed from the street area and pipe zone and were replaced with suitable fill. The cost of removal, replacement, and disposal is $26.50/cubic yard. Based upon the estimated quantity of 100 yards, the cost to the project is $2,650. This is the amount requested for change order # 1. After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Brad Fyle to approve change order #I for Project 93-06C in the amount of $2,650. Motion carried unanimously. 11. Considerption of npnroval of plans and snecifications and authorization nroceed for bids for Imnrovement Proiect 93-11C. chlorination and dechlorination improvements to the wastewater treatment slant. John Simola reported that OSM has completed the plans and specifications for the chlorination and dechlorination system at the Wastewater Treatment Plant. Our deadline for the project is to have the systems in place and in operation during the month of October 1994 so that we can demonstrate to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency that we can dechlorinate prior to the end of our permit in December 1994. Since we do Page 6 O Council Minutes - 9/27/93 not chlorinate after November 1, the October deadline is necessary. City staff and OSM have discussed moving up the timetable due to the necessity to chlorinate during the summer months of 1994. It would be very difficult to continue chlorination during the summer while the construction is going on in the existing chlorine room. We, therefore, feel that it would be in our best interest to move the timetable up for winter construction and the spring of 1994 for startup and request that Council approve the plans and specifications and authorize advertisement for bids, contingent upon approval of the plans and specifications by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. This would allow us to be out for bids in November or December and would allow us to award the project around the first of the year. Anticipated construction cost for this improvement is $51,000. After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Clint Herbst to approve plans and specifications and authorize advertisement for bids contingent upon approval of plans and specifications by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Motion carried unanimously. 12. Consideration of bills for the month of September. Motion made by Brad Fyle and seconded by Patty Olsen to approve the bills as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. 13. Other Matters A. John Simola reviewed the modifications made to the Recycling Program. He noted that as part of the program to encourage better participation in the program, Vasko Sanitation was authorized to leave garbage containers that were filled with recyclables. Simola reported that this affected about 7% of the property owners. It was the consensus of Council to accept this short-term measure as a wake-up call to people refusing to recycle. B. Clint Herbst noted that he had received a call from a property owner requesting a burning permit. It was his view that taking a poll of the Council is not the best way to determine whether or not to issue a burning permit. Assistant Administrator O'Neill noted to Council that during the Council's previous discussion on this general topic, Council directed staff to refuse issuance of any burning permit applications that do not comply completely with the ordinance governing outdoor burning. Such applications were supposed to be submitted to the City Council at a regular meeting, whereupon Council could consider waiving requirements that could not be met. Page 7 CIO) Council Minutes - 9/27/93 It was the consensus of Council to reaffirm the previous policy in regard to open burning, and all applicants that cannot comply with the permit requirements noted by ordinance must come before Council for specific approval. There being no further discussion, meeting was adjourned. Jeff ONeill Assistant Administrator Page 8 0 Council Agenda - 10/11/93 a. Consideration of a resolution su000rtina Monticello Rotary Club efforts to establish social and economic ties to the Citv of Dun¢annon. Northern Ireland. (J.0.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: A copy of the resolution will be presented at Monday evening's meeting. City Council Agenda - 10/11/93 s. Consideration of a variance reauest to allow a building addition onto a non -conforming structure in a rear vard setback requirement. Aunllcant. Gene Jestus. (G.A., J.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Mr. Jestus is before you with a request to he allowed to construct an addition onto his existing garage, which is non -conforming in two respects. The building is located 14 it from the rear lot line, and the standard is 30 ft. 2. The garage door opening on the side yard setback facing Ramsey Street is 4.3 ft from the Ramsey right-of-way, which means that cars parked at the garage must park on the city boulevard. Technically, using the boulevard for this purpose is not permissible. Residential parking should occur on private property. The Jestus property is a corner lot with the shortest side or front yard being Broadway. His existing garage is a lawful non -conforming structure having been built and so situated on his lot prior to the adoption of the zoning ordinance. Mr. Jestus is unable to substantiate a hardship for his variance request. It is unfortunate that when the garage was constructed, it was constructed within a setback requirement by today's zoning (ordinance standards. The ordinance is clear in its requirements limiting the expansion or enlargement of non -conforming structures. Approval of this variance request would be inconsistent with the ordinance. As additional information, approximately two years ago, we did grant a variance request on the adjoining property south of Mr. Jestus' property. As you may recall, Tony Ilanyai was granted a variance which allowed construction of a new garage in the rear yard setback. Banyai did not receive a side yard setback variance. He was required to place his structure 20 ft from Ramsey, which is just barely sufficient (,) provide room for vehicle parking in front of the garage. 13. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Approve the variance request to allow a building addition onto a non- conforming structure in a rear yard setback requirement. City Council Agenda - 10/11/93 Deny the variance request to allow a building addition onto a non- conforming structure in a rear yard setback requirement. C. STAFF AND PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The object by zoning standards is to bring legal non -conforming structures into conforming if at all possible. It is unfortunate that Mr. Jestus' garage was constructed where it was on the lot and does happen to fall within a rear yard setback by today's zoning ordinance requirement. Planning Commission felt that it is important that the City hold firm to the requirement that non -conforming structures be restricted in terms of potential to expand, particularly in this case where a variance would extend the life of a structure that results in vehicles parking on the city boulevard. Furthermore, there is nothing unique about the site, nor is there any particular hardship that would limit the ability of the property owner to move his structure. Therefore, Planning Commission recommended denial. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the location of the proposed variance request; Copy of the zoning ordinance section pertaining to this request; Copy of the site plan; Excerpts from variance request made on 12/4/90 by neighbor to the south (Tony sanyai ). r'J � i ht Consideration of a variance request to allow a building addition onto a non -conforming structure in a rear yard setback requirement. Location is Block 13, Lot 1, except south 125 ft., and all Lots 13, 14, 15, Lower Monticello Addition in the city of Monticello. APPLICANT: Gene Jestus 94 ti is less than the minimum required, it shall not be further reduced. No required open space provided around any building or structure shall be included as a part of any open space required for another structure. [C) All setback distances as listed in the table below shall be measured from the appropriate lot line and shall be required minimum distances. Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard A-0 50 30 50 30 10 30 2 30 10 -3 30 20 30 R-4 30 30 30 PZR See Chapter 10 for specific regulations. PZM See Chapter 10 for specific regulations. B-1 30 15 20 B-2 30 10 20 B-3 30 10 30 B-4 0 0 0 I-1 40 30 40 I-2 50 30 50 1. In R-1, R-2, B-1, and B-2 districts where adjacent structures, excluding accessory buildings within same block, have front yard setbacks different from those required, the front yard minimum setback shall be the average of the adjacent structures. If there is only one (1) adjacent structure, the front yard minimum setback shall be the average of the required setback and the setback of the adjacent structure. In no case shall the minimum front yard setback exceed thirty (30) feet, except as provided in subsection [F) below. 2. In R-1, R-2, B-1, and B-2 districts, if lot is a corner lot, the aide yard setback shall be not less than twenty (20) feet from the lot line abutting the street right-of-way line. [D) The following shall not be considered as encroachments on yard setback requirements: 1. Chimneys, flues, belt courses, leaders, sill, pilaster, lintels, ornamental features, cornices, eaves, gutters, and the like, provided they do not project more than two (2) feet into a yard. 2. Terraces, steps, or similar features, provided they do not extend above the height of the ground floor level of the principal structure or to a distance lose than two (2) feet from any lot line. MONTICELL40 ZONING ORDINANCE 3/18 ✓ G,.b Taker+ Ffoo* /�•►�w3a� J/�� 1, Vat iwr 4,e A&p wc&4;o r1. � i�it .�arll Io GgR.1�P OIL 10.1 rItPR 19 Nettie c 3s+t" t We f Al 4r tt J t AW 3Rd S�RePt v Planning Commission Minutes - 12/4/90 3. Public Hearinq--A variance request to allow construction of e detached qaraqe within the rear yard setback requirement. Applicant, Anton and Cecelia Banyai. Gary Anderson, Zoning Administrator, explained to Planning Commission members and the public Banyai's variance request to place a detached garage' within the rear yard setback requirement. The Banyai's were proposing to construct the detached garage to within 11 feet 3 inches of the rear property line. Mr. Anderson explained that possibly the reason for the placement of the house in this location prior to the zoning ordinance being in effect was to take advantage of the high part of the lot in relationship to Third Street. By placement of the house on the high part of the lot, it would allow for a driveway approach for a future garage off of Ramsey Street. If a garage were to be attached to the house, it would have a very steep incline coming up to the garage if it were placed off of East Third Street. Chairperson Dan McConnon opened the meeting for input from the public. There being no input from the public, Dan McConnon then closed the public hearing and opened the meeting for further input from the Planning Commission members. There being no further input from the Planning Commission members, a motion was made by Cindy Lemm, seconded by Richard Martie, to approve the variance request. Motion carried unanimously with Jon Bogart absent. Reason for approval: When the house was built, the contractor placed the house on the lot to allow for only a 17 -foot 3 -inch attached garage on the north side of the house and a 20 -foot wide attached garage on the east side of the house. By today's standards, a 17 -foot 3 -inch wide garage would be too small for a typical two stall garage, and a 20 -foot wide garage attached to the east side of the house would not be a very good placement for a garage because this is the end of the house where the bedrooms are located. C. Council Agenda - 10/11/93 6. Consideration of oreliminary plat of the Monticello Commerce Center 1st Addition. ADDlicant. Monticello Industrial Park. Inc. W.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Monticello Industrial Park, Inc., requests that the City Council grant preliminary and final plat approval of the Monticello Commerce Park 1st Addition, which consists of a single two -acre lot located directly north of the Little Mountain Elementary School site on Fallon Avenue. This parcel is being subdivided in conjunction with development. of a company that produces pet treats. The plat as proposed meets city code with regard to proper lot dimensions, etc. It is served by an existing roadway (Fallon Avenue) and has immediate access to both sewer and water lines. Access to the city storm sewer system is provided at Fallon Avenue. The site will he graded to allow drainage to flow to the Fallon Avenue drainageway. It may be necessary to upgrade the drainage system conveying storm water to the large swale west of the site. The City Engineer is reviewing this aspect of the plat. If improvements are necessary, it is likely that the work will he done as a public improvement with associated expenses being paid by the benefiting property owners. It should be noted that this two -acre subdivision is the first division of a large tract of land owned by Monticello Industrial Park, Inc. (MIPI) that will ultimately be subdivided into many parcels. City staff does not feel that it is necessary to have a complete understanding of the design of the entire MIPI area in conjunction with the subdivision of this single parcel. This single parcel stands on its own, and it appears that subsequent subdivision of the property will not he hampered with the approval of this subdivision as proposed. However, it should be noted that there is a limit to the degree in which the City can allow the area controlled by MIPI to he subdivided without the City obtaining necessary drainage easements within the interior of the site. Due to the fact that the 1st Addition drains completely to Fallon Avenue, and no drainage goes off-site to the interior of the industrial park area, there is no need to acquire additional drainage casements. Council may wish to address a landscaping/terming issue that has arisen as a result of the rezoning of u portion of the industrial area adjacent to the school from HC to 1.1. As you recall, when MIPI requested the rezoning of the entire BC area to 1-1, it was promised by MIPI that a berm and pine tree plantings would he installed in conjunction with the rezoning. The berm would run the length of the boundary line between the school property and the proposed I.1/MIPI industrial area. As you know, approval of the rezoning from HC to 1-1 was denied except for a section of land extending 400 ft deep along Fallon Avenue. A few weeks ago, 1 asked Charlie Pfeffer if M IPI still intended Council Agenda - 10/11/93 to install the berm along the 400 -ft boundary between the school property and the land that MIPI had successfully rezoned. At that time, he indicated to me that yes, he planned on installing the berm as originally proposed. It appears now, however, that Pfeffer changed his mind and does not plan on installing the berm/plantings. At the Planning Commission meeting, Pfeffer indicated that he would not be installing any landscaping in addition to the minimum required under the 1-1 zoning district. He did note that the trees planted as required by ordinance would be staggered to match trees that the school district, needs to plant to comply with its approved landscape plan. Please note that the landscape plan associated with the conditional use permit allowing development of Little Mountain School called for a row of evergreen trees to be planted along the northern boundary of the property at 15 -ft intervals. This aspect ol'the plan has not been completed. If Council is concerned about inadequate screening separation between the school site and the 1-1 site, then staff should he directed to enforce the school district conditional use permit and/or call for a public hearing to establish an ordinance amendment establishing a screening requirement for 1-1 properties that are adjacent to residential zones. Attached is language from the RC regulations that requires screening between 13C and R-1 uses. Perhaps this language could be added to the 1-1 district regulations. 13. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Decision 1: 1. Motion to approve the preliminary and final plats as submitted. Underthis alternative, the CityCouncil is satisfied with the preliminary and final plate as proposed. Motion to deny approval of the preliminary and final plate as submitted. Decision 2: Motion to call for a public hearing on it proposed zoning ordinance amendment requiring additional landscape planting along I -1/R.-1 zoning boundary lines. Under this alternative, staff would prepare a zoning ordinance amendment for review by the Planning Commission at their next meeting in November. Council would act on it at the meeting scheduled for November A. Council Agenda - 10/11/93 Under this alternative, Council may also wish to direct staff to request school district compliance with the terms of the conditional use permit, which requires pine plantings at 15-R intervals along the school district boundary. ✓ 2. Take no action to call for a public hearing on the zoning ordinance amendment. Council should select this alternative if it is not concerned about requiring the I-1 property owner to be responsible for maintaining the screen separation. Under this alternative, the screen would be less dense and consist of trees planted entirely by the school district. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Decision 1: Staff recommends alternative #1. Decision 2: Staff recommends alternative N1. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the Monticello Commerce Center let Addition preliminary plat; Area map; Zoning ordinance excerpt - regulations governing plantings along I-1 - BC boundary. Final plat will be presented at the meeting. k : i tawfm .m 1 3 e AOVTICnLO rhO1 WAL PAW rAC. d : C/0 PFEfFS CO.. rAC. �J A I I SUITE 101. ' MAPLE SMVE EXECUTTVE CENTER 9 Y,P'I ar.�,. ✓..o. 7200 MOIL= LAZE o n DUPLE QWVEl N 55W P/AE: f6/2 425-2930 wr- f • I � /Aii� MOYOI e1 1 a e"r '1's � r i Ivm t-1 rtfAa,smtw s B -C ®I6tNS^1/CAN1.6! IdrrCnlo rq]Ib/N1u o.wr I Ytl P''. Rj i••i r11'' II SU17F 1C1. �.';• 1'��I I ! !� )�'�'� Jt�l ( a„lE Cmvf ExrCurlvt cFMr �GRIM LME O,rM (IK W W III/M m m IV1 l0r (I Y,Lf (IA71F. W 5536955369 -ISI' ,' • �'.� 9 89'91'3!' E fB?.6! \ .n•` '� ._ 435.60 Vrnrn tma,f ;- marcs Q•�- ----- OT19 �' L !;�. .. F � ` EIB ��b V ; J. )rl✓ �ew.e-ase 4 a B a 3 I1b., 1o.n 1- II roKn e -c 4 I,.. OL{IYII i I n rn. 9outn .00. or /o, to ,U71 1 &LoI or rrr Su, k4Z`II ; �V i , .,apt o1 Sec ...`. , 1Ir .,apt Cant. . a ` 1 1 — �, i ! ♦ Y 1 I fI �1• t: -I__--_—__ ���-gym__-_ JJJ/JJJJ 1 YI �+ • I ----------- I -------- N 89'91'91' 9 4W.B1 —IT"_ — ' II,.1 I Ox .I -i ,fly en ,11,1 DSCIm OlSI91C/ pB7 6 P 0 o E0,iu er .r._.. '...v / 302,1,e,rwro,+ smrFr I IfCE'LL6 M 9961 P4CP J 3 BC Ci � .I � \� � � M�•p t'�at ��t�. � �csr _ + y fl elm R 1 ; R A 0 2. In the "BC" District, all buildings constructed of curtain wall panels of finished steel, aluminum, or fiberglass shall be required to be faced with brick, wood, stone, architectural concrete case in place or pre -case panels on all wall surfaces. (C) Parking. Detailed parking plans in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 5, shall be submitted for City review and approved before a building permit may be obtained. (D) Loading. A detailed off-street loading plan, including berths, area, and access sl:dll be submitted to the City In conformance with the provisions of Chapter 3, Section 6, for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. i [E] Landscaping. A detailed landscaping plan in conformance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [G], shall be submitted to the Council and approved before a building permit may be [,L obtained. 1 Gl..n�l� JoZ VAC �.V-ttt l.i AISo o„ P In additi to they requirements of Chapter 3, Section 2 l• a,� 11 [GJ, al parcels developed along the boundary between Baa S IV the 8 iM one and a residential zone shall include �e planting of evergreens as a screen between BCl/ and R-1 uses. The evergreens planted shall be planted—dvery 15 W eQ feet along the property boundary. [F) Usable Open Space. Every effort shall be made to preserve natural ponding areas and features of the land to create passive open space. [G) Signage. A comprehensive sign plan must be submitted in conformance with Chapter 3, Section 9. Lot Requirements: Lot Area - 30,000 eq ft Lot Width - 100 feet Setbacks: Front Yard - 50 feet Side Yard - 30 feet Rear Yard - 40 feet (02/24/92, 1221) MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 0 15A/4 City Council Agenda - 10/11/93 7. Consideration of oreliminary and final plat approval of Point Minnie. Applicant, Stuart Hoglund. Plat size and location: 3.8 acres consisting of 4 lots. I of which includes the site of the Comfort Inn of Monticello. 0.0. ) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: This request, for preliminary and final plat approval of the Point. Minnie subdivision is identical to the request made on July 5. 1990. Both the Planning Commission and the City Council reviewed and approved the preliminary plat in 1990. Due to the fact there was a delay that lasted more than one year between the time of preliminary plat approval and the request for final plat approval, it is necessary to bring this item back to the Planning Commission and City Council for both preliminary mid final plat reapproval. As you will note in the attached meeting minutes, there were a number of items that needed to be cleared up before final plat approval would he granted. These items have now been taken care of, therefore, it is now appropriate to consider the preliminary plat of the Point Minnie subdivision. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to grant preliminary plat approval of the Point Minnie subdivision. 2. Motion to deny preliminary plat approval of the Point Minnie subdivision. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Due to the fact that Stuart Hoglund has addressed the drainage issues associated with platting of the property by making improvements to the ditch system along Oakwood Drive and by obtaining necessary drainage easements from the property impacted by storm water from the site (Hoglund Transportation), it appears appropriate at this time to grant preliminary and final approval of the Point Minnie plat. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Meeting minutes of Planning Commission meeting held 7/15/90; Meeting minutes of Council meeting held 7/9/90; Area map; Copy of preliminary plat and final plat. Planning Commission Minutes - 7/5/90 Public Hearing --A Dreliminary Dlat reouest for a commercial subdivision plat. Applicant, Stuart Hoolund. Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained to Planning Commission members and the public Mr. Hoglund•s request for a preliminary commercial subdivision plat. Mr. O'Neill presented a video tape of the entire property showing existing drainage problems which occur just outside of this plat. Chairperson Dan McConnon then closed the public hearing and opened the meeting for discussion amongst the Planning Commission members. Discussion amongst the Planning Commission members centered around the drainage problems which were highlighted outside of this preliminary plat by Mr. O'Neill. With no further input from Planning Commission members, motion was made by Cindy Lamm, seconded by Richard Carlson, to approve the preliminary plat of the Minnie Point subdivision subject to City acquisition of proper drainage easements from properties impacted by the Minnie Point storm water. Also, the City is to work with the developer and the other property owners on the development of culverts consistent with City standards at locations noted. Motion carried unanimously. Council Minutes - 7/9190 C,. Consideration of a preliminary plat request for commercial subdivision plat. Applicant, Stuart Hoglund. Assistant Administrator O'Neill described the Minnie Point subdivision and noted that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to City acquisition of proper drainage easements across properties impacted by Minnie Point storm water and subject to development of a plan for conveying storm water along the Oakwood Drive right-of-way to Highway 25. O'Neill noted that most of the water from the Minnie Point area currently drains onto the Hoglund Transportation company property on its way to the freeway ditch and then into the Walnut Street storm sewer system. This has not been a problem in the past, as the Minnie Point area and Hoglund Transportation property have been under common ownership. Now that the land is being subdivided with the intent to sell, it may be prudent to formally identify a drainage and utility easement across the Hoglund Transportation property. O'Neill went on to note there appear to be two possible drainage alignments. Selection of the alignment is to be determined by the applicant. O'Neill also noted that a portion of the water produced by the site drains to the Oakwood Drive ditch. The purpose of this ditch is to convey water westward to Highway 25. Unfortunately, the ditch does not serve this purpose, as there are culverts along the ditch line that are absent or are too small to properly convey the amount of water that would be produced by this site; therefore, it may make sense at this time to acknowledge the problem and develop a plan for opening up this ditch line to Highway 25. The construction of the ditch improvements may be deferred until such time that actual construction occurs. After discussion, a motion was made by Fran Fair, Seconded by warren Smith, to approve the preliminary plat of the Minnie Point Subdivision subject to City acquisition of necessary utility and drainage easements across properties impacted by Minnie Point subdivision storm water and Subject to development of a plan for improving Oakwood Drive ditch in a manner that will allow storm drainage to drain to the Highway 25 or freeway ditch storm drainage areas. Oakwood Drive storm drain improvements are to be completed during or before Minnie Point commercial site development. Motion carried unanimously. 0 W0W n,t t4l(kliii Area MAP t '-Pbirxf p'elim. Plat Wmnit Final PI -f- euaw/a arrxnrnr mf xp+m,wr o• rnr K /iw tr r/L xry /i• pr SFc µ rx� rst •aC. ' n n •Jrurp ro N•/r • KNIwR a \iJss a,rl-N r � r N J•e - /p � /Ip � � I O rf•pIFS I/1 wC/r•I•Mi,wlaN rRMBCxr JFl nm • n.•Jrx uix•.wrp waa •v rlsaJ " aK.wMllfl xlm •b drl•xr lOOO \ i r[fr x<wm or' M Jdlm I K pr M i JWr/.x[JI rpvFw P• N//• O rhC Jx//• M+I rppxr. c•J/ , `�\ N BB'S/7/"E DEED J36.60 INCAS. 338.65 I r,xrpy rpM.Yr) � /PO •• ._� � /Jl Pp IO JJJROO j\�' ": \� ,% raven LK yrK JF/i• •. g I� Y00 I "IZAL a --fI�.Y` \Aprx(K pf .Krf/i• 0 � � I •� drxe xx,i• d� sre. I• „I � . o i ` ld l � L _ _ N B9'7P IJ W � •' Lam.. � `vvv}1114 s.,\• r�. � i I- _—IlD li._._1 ^ m• • o. an ne/ru •n plp /I. r rrrxn •.r JMxx mn I � rwrv/rrw wmm Nurare1 I ,/vr an•Irrwwen.IsO •Nwo1p1 IMIIYrL prNAO/rM+xxOMgY ' •B n Y 1 -• ;l 7�l rAV7 ng i w�un C//QVA-VHpQ /A/I' Council Agenda - 10/11/93 s. Consideration of an amendment to Chapter 16 of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance which would permit use of a temporary structure not to exceed 700 sa ft as an accessory use on an interim basis. Applicant. Community United Methodist Church. W.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Following is a slightly modified copy of the agenda supplement provided to the Planning Commission regarding this case. For the sake of efficiency, you are being provided the same supplement. Planning Commission recommended approval of the zoning ordinance amendment with some modifications. The modifications have been made and are incorporated into the proposed ordinance amendment. A two-year time limit for use of a temporary building is suggested by the Planning Commission. The vote to approve was unanimous. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of modified Planning Commission agenda dated 10/5/93; Copy of proposed ordinance amendment. Planning Commission Agenda - 10/5/93 6. Public Hearing—Consideration of an amendment to Chanter 16 of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance which would hermit use of a temoorary structure not to exceed 700 so ft as an accessory use on an interim basis. ADDlicanL Community United Methodist Church. (J.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND At the September 13 meeting of the City Council, representatives from the Community United Methodist Church presented a request to place a 12'x 52' temporary classroom on the Methodist Church site. According to church officials, a temporary structure is needed to help relieve overcrowding problems faced by the growing congregation. Apparently. there is limited space available for classrooms, and classes are now being taught in church hallways. They are looking for land and will be constructing a new facility in the next few years. In response to the proposal, City staff informed City Council that the current city ordinance does not allow this type of development. This is because the church is located in an 1-2 zone, making it a lawful but non- conforming use. The church has "grandfather" rights to continue its current manner of operation; but under our present ordinance, it cannot he allowed to expand. Placement of a temporary classroom on site would, in our estimation, constitute an expansion of the use. In addition, temporary structures of any kind are not allowed in an 1.2 zone. An amendment to the ordinance would need to be prepared which would allow this type of structure to exist. Council responded by authorizing City staff to work with the City Planner and City Attorney to determine the necessary zoning ordinance amendments required to potentially allow the Methodist Church to use it temporary structure as proposed. The authorization was not necessarily an approval of the concept or a pre -approval of the zoning ordinance amendment. It simply authorized City staff to work with the church to initiate the process of obtaining the necessary zoning ordinance amendment(s). In response, City staff has prepared it zoning ordinance amendment that would allow temporary structures such as it classroom as proposed to be used in an 1.2 zone only. Under the proposed ordinance, it would not he possible to place such a stricture in any other zoning district. In addition, the ordinance singles out non -conforming uses in the 1.2 zone its tieing eligihle to use a temporary structure. The provision allowing non- conforming uses in an 1.2 zone to have it temporary building supercedes the general requirements that till non -conforming uses cannot expand. Planning Commission Agenda - 10/5/93 IMPLICATIONS On the positive side, the zoning ordinance amendment limits temporary buildings to the 1-2 zone only. Furthermore, the 1-2 zone, being the heavy industrial zone, would not likely suffer a depreciation in land values. The nature of this zone is such that temporary structures may not have a significant negative impact. It does not appear likely that businesses and industries in the 1.2 zone %vill likely take advantage of the opportunity to place a temporary structure on site. To my knowledge, we have never received such a request. One could imagine, however, the possibility of a company needing a temporary structure on site to help them through a period of growth where perhaps they need additional office space. The ordinance amendment also allows a non -confirming use (a church) to expand on a limited basis through placement of a temporary building on site. After reviewing other existing uses in the 1-2 district, I could not find any other non -conforming uses in the other 1-2 districts within the city; therefore, this expansion of a non -conforming use will he limited to the church. On the negative side, the ordinance is set up w allow a temporary building to be in place for a "limited" (2 -year) time period; however, it is possible that "interim" can turn into long -tern. Enforcement of the time limit could end up being a problem. Will the City have the will to deny an extension to the interim use? And if the interim use extension is denied, will it have the will to require removal of the temporary structure? Planning Commission and Council may also be concerned about being accused of favoritism. Other churches in the community have Iwught land to provide space necessary to accommodate their growing congregations; and in doing so, they have met the basic requirements of the city zoning ordinance. One has to ask, would the City change the ordinance for other nun -conforming businesses or institutions that wished to expand? Finally, the proposed ordinance amendment states that the temporary structure is not considered to constitute an expansion of it pre-existing legal non -conforming use. This provision is inconsistent with the zoning ordinance's general goal of converting lawful non-amfonning uses to conforming uses. Planning Commission needs to det.ennine whether or not, it wishes to undermine this general principal by allowing expansion of the church at this location. Cg r Planning Commission Agenda - 10/5/93 Under alternative #1 below, Planning Comm i ssionJCouncil will need to designate the duration of the interim period. How many years does the Planning Commission feel that a temporary structure should he allowed to he used on site. According to the Methodist Church representatives, it may be as many as five years before the new church facility is constructed. This time period may or may not be longer than the time period that the Planning Commission would feel is acceptable. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Motion to adopt an ordinance amendment as proposed. Under this alternative, the Planning Commission could make a finding that the ordinance amendment is consistent with the geography and character of the 1.2 zoning district and is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Land values in the 1-2 zoning district will not be impacted by the zoning ordinance amendment. Under this alternative, the Planning Commission finds that the positive implications outlined above outweigh the negative D implications with regard to the 1-2 zone and the zoning ordinance in general. 2. Motion to deny approval of the ordinance amendment, ns proposed. Under this alternative, the Planning Commission could make a finding that the proposed amendment is not consistent with the geography and character of the 1.2 zone, it is not consistent with the comprehensive plan, and could result in a depreciation of land values. Under this alternative, Planning Commission views introduction of temporary structures in the 1-2 zone as creating a problem in the I-2 zone. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: On one hand, there does not appear to be a demonstrated need justifying temporary structures in the 1.2 zone. Without this special situation, would the City have considered allowing temporary structures in the 1.2 zone? Furthermore, it undermines the important general principal that non- conforming uses should he converted over time to conforming uses. to Planning Commission Agenda - 10/5/93 On the other hand, despite concerns noted above, it does appear that the ordinance amendment as drafted will not result in a proliferation of temporary structures throughout the city, nor allow other non -conforming uses to expand. Therefore, approval of the ordinance amendment merits serious consideration. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of proposed ordinance amendment. G ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO HEREBY ORDAINS THAT ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 10.16.3 RELATING TO ACCESSORY USES IN THE 1.2 ZONE BE AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS: 16-3: ACCESSORY USES: (A) Permitted Accessory Uses: The following are permitted accessory uses in an "I-2" district: 1. All permitted accessory uses allowed in an 1-1 (light industrial) district.. (B) Interim Accessory Uses: The following are interim accessory uses in an "I-2" district: 1. One temporary structure as an interim accessory use, subject to the following conditions: (a) The interim accessory structure is not to exceed 700 sq R. (b) The property owneris) sign a development agreement with the City controlling site development and use, including a dale upon which the interim use is to terminale. (c) The termination date is established at u point not longer than two (2) years following City Council approval. (d) The property owner supply adequate security to ensure removal of the interim structure and use upon reaching the termination date. lel All other standards of Cho Monticello Zoning Ordinance are met. (f) Any Interim Accessory Use or Structure approved under this section will not be considered to constitute an expansion of a pro -existing legal non -conforming use where applicable. Adopted by the City Council this 11th day of October, 1093. Mayor City Administrator O 8 Council Agenda - 10/11/93 9. Consideration of request by abutting property owner to construct a fence around undeveloped West 4th Street --Jim Eisele. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND As you may have noticed recently, Mr. Jim Eisele purchased a parcel of land between 3rd and 4th Streets abutting Lite American legion Club's parking lot on the north and undeveloped 4th Street on the south. The property is adjacent to Elm Street and backs up to Pinewood Elementary School. Mr. Eisele cleared the property of all its trees and buildings and is in the process of planting new trees and ground cover. As part of his cleanup efforts, Mr. Eisele also cleared out all of the trees and brush on undeveloped 4th Street between Elm Street and the Pinewood School property. In order to keep people from entering his property, Mr. Eisele would like permission to construct a fence surrounding the perimeter of 4th Street. Normally, platted but undeveloped streets are maintained by abutting property owners who are allowed to use the property as long as it is not inconsistent with the adjacent property uses. In other words, undeveloped streets lying between commercial properties are usually maintained by the property owners and would be allowed to be used in a manner consistent with commercial uses, although no permanent structures would be allowed. While Mr. Eisele is not proposing any specific use other than enclosing the property with a fence, the enclosure would restrict other people from having access to the street right -of --way and would also restrict the abutting property owner from having any access to half of the street right-of-way. While it is our understanding that the abutting property owner does not have a problem with the street right-of-way king fenced by Mr. Eisele, a future property owner may question why Mr. Eisele hits claimed use of the entire right-of-way when possibly half could have been used by someone else. As some of you may recall, Mr. Eisele also requested similar consideration in 1989 when he requested permission to fence undeveloped Linn Street between t 1/2 and Lith Street just west of the current new fire hall building. Mr. Eisele had received permission to lease the cast half of Linn Street, as he was the owner of the property to Lite cast and wanted to use the property for parking and storage purposes. One year later in 1989, Mr. Eisele purchased property to the west of Linn Street, and at that time he requested permission of the City Council to fence in Lite entire property to keep people out of his property, including Linn Street. 'rhe City Council granted approval allowing the area to he, fenced but noted that the property Council Agenda - 10/11/93 had to he used in a manner that was consistent with its current zoning use. The property east of Linn Street was zoned commercial, which coincided with his present use of a garage facility for repairing antique cars; but the property west of Linn Street was multi -family residential. Mr. Eisele indicated that he had no plans for using the property other than parking at that time; but after the property was fenced, Mr. Eisele did construct a concrete loading dock in the southwest corner of the property which was zuoed residential. This use would seem to be inappropriate in a residential district, and the loading dock was used at that time because of Mr. Eisele's business venture, which was JME dumpster rentals. While the Linn Street issue noted above is not directly connected to the request to fence in 4th Street, they are similar in that a property owner is asking for permission to enclose an undeveloped street with a fence that will be in effect telling the public that no access is allowed to this area. I do believe the City Council should be cognizant of the fact that a precedent may be set if we allow individuals on a first-come first -serve basis to claim use of undeveloped right-of-ways by constructing fences without giving adjacent property owners an equal opportunity to utilize half of the street D right-of-way. In Mr. Eisele's case, there is an adjacent property owner to the south that would have just as much right two utilize half of the 4th Street right-of-way; but once a fence is constructed, access will be denied to everyone but Mr. Eisele. While I believe Mr. Eisele feels it's important to construct the fence to keep snowmobilers, 3 -wheelers, and other vehicles from entering his property, 1 do not necessarily agree that the right-of-way has to he included in the fenced -in area; and Mr. Eisele could protect his property by simply placing the fence along the north property line of 4th Street. It may he well for the City to consider adopting a policy relating w fence locations on undeveloped streets by adjacent property owners. 13. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: I 1uc. The first alternative would be to allow Mr. Eisele to fence in the entire 4th Street right-of-way as requested. The second alternative would he (,) allow Mr. Eisele to fence in up to half of the right-of-way as an abutting property owner. The third alternative would be to deny Mr. Eisele the right to fence in the property and to require the fence to he placed on the property line if he wishes to deny people access to his property. 10 Council Agenda - 10/1 V93 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: While I understand Mr. Eisele's desire to enclose the area by a fence in order to continue maintaining the property, I question whether the City should be allowing one abutting property owner the right to fence in an entire unused right-of-way, which essentially will deny access to the other abutting property owner. While the present neighbor may not object, a future property owner could be requesting permission to use half the street for a garden or whatever purpose. From a visual standpoint, if Mr. Eisele is allowed to fence in all of the right-of-way, it will appear to the general public that Mr. Eisele is the owner of the entire piece of property when, in fact, the right-of-way still exists. I think Mr. Eisele's concern of denying access to his property by putting up a fence is justifiable, but it should be located on his property line or, at most, on the centerline of the undeveloped street right-of-way. This would allow the abutting property owner to the south an equal access to the street in the meantime. If you get an opportunity to view the property, you may notice that fence posts have already been constructed on the south side of the right-of-way, and Mr. Eisele has been instructed to stop further construction until the Council has had an opportunity to review this request. SUPPORTING DATA: Map depicting area in question. It // � /J , ir' \ �•� \� `,� wi � � � � , ham\ / hl `i \\ �. , �� .,` •% ..i XC cy 4v! A 4 C,19. / y Ab cr 1113110 . ti :. + i. `` i,4i $ w`" l�� Iwr1' ' • i .4R L'.". L'Q� : +- • �' ,CVS u.u. >+ ' ' i �>� 1 •� iii. ,� 8} • tro � �r � r� . i •s ............. ... .... r' a i'} ----i--su.'T"- �pu�-U'iY M� 41t�41umt.(aw. ,i ! 7 ! � • � F 7 s !-? IY .. 4CCL •w i�h !... —W� 'r 'A • t'J � w�, V ' i ha J l9 OONTICULO :ou" TRY :LUS :DURT L q hw GOLF COLO?5Z RD JP 0 -77 • 04, I INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 882 Key Douvote- Sheldon D. Johnson, Superintendent Ellamont incipal 295-5t8e Telephone (612) 295-5184 BnNovak Fax (612) 295.23.90 Elelrlentary, Principal P. O. BOX 897 295�utw MONTICELLO. MINNESOTA 55362 BOARD of EDUCATION Superintendent of Schools ,tanwwrbst October 11. 1993 Chair SDJ/ja Kathryn flpenW— Clerk Dennis 9uaQkeek Treasurer To Whom It May Concern: Nancy Cassano Dire" It is my understanding that Jim Eisele, property owner adjacent to the Pinewood Elementary School site, is Jet"Bale tt Director requesting permission from the City of Monticello to erect a fence between our two properties. The school U'ltr district has no problem or objection with this fence, Dior even if it extends across the street easement directly south of Mr. Eisele's property. ADMINISTRATION I would like to point out, however, that the school Ukhad BeneMeto district would be in objection to this easement being Asp. Supl.nnsuuction surrendered to Mr. Eisele due to the fact that, at ` -95-5184 some point in the future, the school district might Rktk"welns want to extend a street from the Pinewood school e"nessmanaper buildings to 4Lh Street extended. 295-5184 LV dol In my conversations with Mr. Eisele regarding his H1ph School Principal fencing request, I do not believe he is asking for 295-2913 this street easement to be vacated so I don't believe Robs rl Voocks a problem exists. I did want to point out the fact, Hlph School Princnpal however, that we would like to see the flexibility of 295-2913 4th Street. being extended at some point in the future. KermK as me Middle School Pflncipal If you have any questions, please feel free to contact 295-41e1 me. Key Douvote- Ellamont incipal 295-5t8e S i eme re BnNovak ' Elelrlentary, Principal 295�utw S. D. Jolt aon William White Superintendent of Schools Activities Director 295-2913 SDJ/ja Paul Zorn" Special ECucatlon Diva" 295-5185 luam Oath Community Educatbn Do. 295-2918 Ca deco BerAm Apt. Community Educ. Du. 295-2918 City Council Agenda - 10/11/93 to, Consideration of amendment to Chapter 3-5 JDl 9 (f) of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance which would allow curb cut widths in commercial and industrial districts to exceed a width of 24 ft at the discretion of the Citv Engineer and Zoning Administrator. W.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Following is a copy of the agenda supplement. Provided to the Planning Commission regarding this case. For the sake of efficiency, you are being provided the same supplement. Planning Commission recommended approval of the zoning ordinance amendment as proposed per alternative #I. The vote was unanimous. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Planning Commission agenda supplement of 10/5/93; Copy of proposed zoning ordinance amendment. OLD Lq-OGUAGE (d) No curb cut access shall be located less than forty (40) feet from the intersection of two (2) or more street right-of-ways. This distance shall be measured from the intersection of lot lines. (e) Except in the case of single family, two- family, and townhouse dwellings, parking areas and their aisles shall be developed in compliance with the following standards: Parallel Parking: Twenty-two (22) feet in length. (f) No curb cut access shall exceed twenty-four C�LA_A (24) feet in width. (g) Curb cut openings and driveways shall be at a minimum three (3) feet from the side yard property line in residential districts and five (5) feet from the side yard lot line in business or industrial districts. (h) Driveway access curb openings on a public street except for single, two-family, and townhouse dwellings shall not be located less than forty (40) foot from one another. (i) The grade elevation of any parking area shall not exceed five (5) percent. (j) Each property shall be allowed one (1) curb cut per one hundred twenty-five (125) feet of street frontage. All property shall be entitled to at least one (1) curb cut. Single family uses shall be limited to one (1) curb cut access per property. (k) SURFACING: All areas intended to be utilized for parking space and driveways shall be surfaced with materials suitable to control dust and drainage. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3/25/._ WALL HALL TO INTERLOCK TO TO INTERLOCK INTERLOCK ANGLE MINIMUM MINIMUM MINIMUM 30 148.6' 44.5' 40.3' 45 56.8' 53.4' 50.0' 60 62.0' 59.7' 57.4' 90 64.0' 64.0' 64.0' Parallel Parking: Twenty-two (22) feet in length. (f) No curb cut access shall exceed twenty-four C�LA_A (24) feet in width. (g) Curb cut openings and driveways shall be at a minimum three (3) feet from the side yard property line in residential districts and five (5) feet from the side yard lot line in business or industrial districts. (h) Driveway access curb openings on a public street except for single, two-family, and townhouse dwellings shall not be located less than forty (40) foot from one another. (i) The grade elevation of any parking area shall not exceed five (5) percent. (j) Each property shall be allowed one (1) curb cut per one hundred twenty-five (125) feet of street frontage. All property shall be entitled to at least one (1) curb cut. Single family uses shall be limited to one (1) curb cut access per property. (k) SURFACING: All areas intended to be utilized for parking space and driveways shall be surfaced with materials suitable to control dust and drainage. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3/25/._ )VOL) Lel-NJ6U46E ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO HEREBY ORDAINS THAT ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 10-3-5 [D] 9 (f) RELATING TO CURB CUT ACCESS BE AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS: (f) No curb cut access shall exceed twenty-four (24) feet in width with the following exception: Curb cut access in industrial and conunercial zoning districts may exceed twenty-four (24) feet with the approval of the City Engineer and the Zoning Administrator. Denial by the City Engineer and Zoning Administrator of curb cut access in excess of twenty-four (24) feet may lie appealed following the procedures outlined in Chapter 23 of the zoning ordinance. Adopted by the Monticello City Council on October 11, 1993. Mayor City Administrator Planning Commission Agenda - 10/5/93 Public Hearing—Consideration of amendment to Chapter 3-5 [Dl 9 (f) of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance which would allow curb cut widths in commercial and industrial districts to exceed a width of 24 feet at the discretion of the Citv Engineer and Zoning Administrator. Q.O.) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: As you recall, at the previous meeting of the Planning Commission. H - Window Company requested a variance to the 24 -ft curb width requirement. The variance request was turned down due to the fact that a hardship was not demonstrated; however, the Planning Commission requested that a public hearing be held on the possibility of liberalizing our curb cut requirement in industrial zones. City staff moved forward by calling a public hearing and by researching the matter further. As a result of our research, we found that the Planning Commission's hunch that the 24 -ft curb requirement is overly restrictive is correct. According to the City Planner, among other cities it is common to have the City Engineer be authorized to allow wider curb cuts where appropriate. The proposed zoning ordinance amendment prepared for Planning Commission review simply adds a sentence to the existing language which provides the City Engineer, in conjunction with the Zoning Administrator, to allow curb cuts in excess of 24 ft. As noted during our discussion with H -Window Company, it is very difficult to provide safe and convenient ingress and egress for large trucks when curb cut widths are limited to 24 ft. From a public safety and site usability standpoint, it would appear that allowing wider curb cuts makes sense. Obviously under the ordinance amendment, the City Engineer and Zoning Administrator are given considerable authority in determining what is an acceptable and unacceptable curb cut width. Planning Commission may not be comfortable with providing such discretionary power. Perhaps the ordinance should include a maximum. The danger of providing a maximum is that this number could become the standard. The zoning ordinance amendment also includes a provision that allows a developer to appeal a decision made by the City Engineer and Zoning Administrator. Please note that the amendment applies both to commercial and industrial areas. According to the City Planner, the need for wider curb cuts applies to both areas. C/O Planning Commission Agenda - 10/5/93 B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to approve the ordinance amendment which would allow curb cut widths in commercial and industrial districts to exceed a width of 24 ft at the discretion of the City Engineer and Zuning Administrator. Under this alternative, Planning Commission could make a finding that the wider curb cuts are necessary to allow adequate access to commercial and indnst.rial sites and, therefore, enable reasonable use of commercial and industrial property. Planning Commission is comfortable with providing the City Engineer and City staff with the latitude to determine the appropriate curb cut widths. Under this alternative, the City Engineer and Zoning Administrator would carefully scrutinize requests for curb cuts wider than 24 ft and determine if the need for such curb cut widths are justified. Factors that will be considered include the type of vehicles using the access point, proximity to intersections, turning radius needs, etc. 2. Motion to denv the ordinance amendment which would allow curb cut widths in commercial and industrial districts to exceed a width of 24 ft at the discretion of the City Engineer and Zoning Administrator. Under this alternative, the Planning Commission is satisfied that the existing ordinance is satisfactory and that there is no need to update the ordinance. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: City staff recommends approval of the zoning ordinance amendment as submitted. It is our view that the existing ordinance is too restrictive and will continue to result in variance requests. Allowing wider curb cut widths in commercial and industrial zones will enhance the usability of commercial and industrial property without sacrificing public safety or usability of the public right-of-way. Staff is not overly concerned that the City Engineer and Zoning Administrator are given too much discretionary power when reviewing curb cut width requests in excess of 24 ft. It is our view that the City Engineer and staff have the expertise that will enable them to make good decisions in this area. D, SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of proposed zoning ordinance amendment. 12 0/0 Council Agenda - 10/11/93 11. Consideration of transient merchant ordinance amendment. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND During our recent Recycling Committee meeting, it was noted that our recycling tonnages in all areas were lower than they have been for a number of months, including a reduction in aluminum recycling. Randy, of 1) & K Recycling, has questioned City staff a number of times on why the City of Monticello allows outside recyclers, such as Evergreen Recycling from Buffalo and the Can Man, to set up their mobile equipment at various locations in Monticello for the purpose of purchasing aluminum. As I'm sure you are aware, Evergreen Recycling (formerly Polka Dot) buys aluminum every Monday afternoon at the VFW Club parking lot. The Can Man sets up their portable purchasing station at the K -Mart parking lot. D & K Recycling feels that making these sites readily available to the competitors only cuts into the amount of aluminum that is recycled at curb side. In reviewing our ordinances, it would appear possibly the City should he addressing those firms or individuals who set up temporary recycling centers in the same manner we treat other transient merchants who are trying to sell items on a temporary basis. While our ordinance under transient merchants currently defines a transient merchant as a person who engages in selling items, it would he easy to modify the ordinance to also include individuals who purchase items, such as recyclers. The same concerns exist for those businesses that purchase items as those that sell merchandise in that we want to make sure that the activity is located in the proper zoning district and that adequate off-street parking is available, etc. Whether the person is selling paintings or flowers or buying aluminum cons, there should not be a difference in our treatment of these temporary businesses. In the long run, it may he heneficial for the City to regulate recyclers from temlxararily conducting husiness in Monticello which competes with ourown recycling program. The ordinance covering transient merchants could easily he amended by simply inserting verbiage that defines a transient merchant as an individual who engages in the temporary business of selling and delivering goods, wares, merchandise or buying and receiving goods, wares, and merchandise. If the amendment is adopted, recyclers such as Evergreen Recycling and the Can Man would he subject to the same restrictions as other transient merchants, including the $50/day permit fee, should they desire to continue operation in Monticello. It was the recommendation of the Recycling Committee that the amendment be brought, before the City Council for approval. 13 Council Agenda - 10/11/93 B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Adopt the ordinance amendment as proposed which would include the definition of a transient merchant to be either buying or selling merchandise on a temporary basis. 2. Do not adopt the ordinance amendment. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Since one of the main concerns of having an ordinance dealing with transient merchants is to insure that temporary businesses are located in the proper district and also are located in areas that have sufficient parking and meet other zoning requirements, the same provision should also apply to a temporary business that buys items from the public. If it becomes more difficult for an outside recycler to locate temporarily in Monticello, we may see a decrease in the number of incidences were items are removed from curb side recycling bins for the purpose of selling the items to the recycler. In addition, the more items our recycling firm (D & K) can collect, the better chance we have of keeping our price for collection services ai a reasonable level since D & K depends on the aluminum as a major portion of their revenue from recycling. It is the recommendation of the Recycling Committee and City staff that the ordinance be amended as proposed. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of present transient merchant ordinance; Copy of proposed ordinance amendment. 14 Present crdt*ozzrnce_ CHAPTER 10 TRANSIENT MERCHANTS SECTION: 3-10-1: Definition 3-10-2: Permit Required 3-10-3: Exemptions 3-10-4: Application 3-10-5: Religious and Charitable Organizations, Exemption 3-10-6: Investigation and Issuance 3-10-7: Duty of City Administrator to Enforce 3-10-8: Revocation of License 3-10-9: Appeal 3-10-10: Reapplication 3-10-11: Expiration of Permit 3-10-12: Penalty 3-10-1: DEFINITION: When used in this ordinance, the following term has the following meaning: (A) "Transient merchant" includes any person, firm, or corporation, whether as owner, agent, consignee, or employee, who engages in a temporary business (five days or less per calendar year) of selling and delivering goods, wares, and merchandise within the city and who, in furtherance of such purpose, hires, leases, uses, or occupies any building, structure, motor vehicle, trailer, tent, railroad boxcar, boat, public room in hotels, lodging houses, apartments, shops, or any street, alley, or other place within the city for the exhibition and sale of such goods, wares, and merchandise either privately or at public auction, provided that such definition does not include any person, firm, or corporation who, while occupying such temporary location, does not sell from stock but exhibits samples for the purpose of securing orders for future delivery only. Location utilized by transient merchants shall be consistent with uses identified as permitted in particular zoning district and adequate off-street parking is available. 3-10-2-.* PERMIT REQUIRED: It is unlawful for any transient merchant to engage in any such business within the city of Monticello without first obtaining a permit therefore in compliance with the provisions of this ordinance. (A) A daily permit shall be required for any "transient merchant" as defined in Section 3-10-1(A). MONTICELLO CITY ORDINANCE TITLE III/Chpt 10/Page I ®R proms arncndment ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO HEREBY ORDAINS THAT ORDINANCE SECTION 3-10-1 (A) RELATING TO THE DEFINITION OF "TRANSIENT MERCHANT" BE AMENDED AS FOLLOWS: 3-10-1: DEFINITION: When used in this ordinance, the following term has the following meaning: (A) "Transient merchant" includes any person, firm, or corporation, whether as owner, agent, consignee, or employee, who engages in a temporary business (five days or less per calendar year) of selling and delivering goods, wares, and merchandise, or buying y/M m and receivine mods. wares. and merchandise within the city and who, in furtherance of such purpose, hires, leases, uses, or occupies any building, structure, motor vehicle, trailer, tent, railroad boxcar, boat, public room in hotels, lodging houses, apartments, shops, or any street, alley, or other place within the city for the exhibition and sale of such goods, wares, and merchandise either privately or at public auction, provided that such definition does not include any person, firm, or corporation who, while occupying such temporary location, does not sell from stock but exhibits samples for the purpose of securing orders for future delivery only. Location utilized by transient merchants shall be consistent with uses identified as permitted in particular zoning district and adequate off-street parking is available. Adopted by the City Council this 11th day of October, 1993. Mayor City Administrator (The underlined portion is the amendment.) /n Council Agenda - 10/11/93 12. Consideration of approving renewal of Joint Fire Deoartment contracts with Silver Creek Township and Citv of Otsego. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND The Monticello Joint Fire Department contracts for fire protection services covering a portion of the City of Otsego and approximately half of Silver Creek Township that will be expiring December 31, 1993. The City Council and the Monticello Township Board are being asked to approve rontrart rrnewal'; for the two jurisdictions based on recommendations of the Joint Fire Board. The fire department has provided service to Silver Creek Township for a number of years and recently began servicing the western portion of 0tsego on January 1, 1992. The latest contracts for both jurisdictions were only one year in length to allow the Joint Fire Board an opportunity to review its cost structure in anticipation of raising the fees to contracting jurisdictions. The Joint Fire Board recently met for the purpose of reviewing 1994 fire department budget and at that meeting discussed increasing the contracting fees from the current $25 per parcel to $35 per parcel for both Silver Creek and Otsego. It was noted that the Elk River Fire Department has, for a number of years, been charging the City of Otsego approximately $35 per parcel, and recently the City of Otsego decided to contract with the City of Albertville for a small triangular portion of Otsego that lies south of 1.94 starting October 1, 1993. This small triangular parcel containing approximately 39 homesites was previously serviced by Monticello, and Otsego will now he paying approximately $72 per parcel to the Albertville Fire Department. When reviewing the City's fire department costs, Monticello Township representatives felt the charge imposed on contracting communities should he increased Ui $35 per parcel to better reflect the actual cost of providing protection. With the City of Elk River currently charging Otsego in this range, Otsego should he willing to pay $35 to the Monticello Fire Department for the territory we serve. Township Board members RIsO noted that the cost to Monticello Township for fire protection is closer to $35 per parcel than the $25 we are charging other jurisdictions. Therefore, the Township has a difficult time charging contracting communities less than it is costing their own residents for fire protection. At the time of last year's contract renewal, each ju risdiction wits notified that the Joint Fire Board would be reviewing the fees for 1994 and anticipated an increase to the $30 to $35 per parcel range. Both jurisdictions were given 15 Council Agenda - 10/11/93 ample time to increase their budgets if necessary to cover the anticipated increase starting in 1994. In the case of Silver Creek Township, the contract increase to $35 per parcel would change their annual charge from approximately $12,100 to $16,900. For the City of Otsego, the increase to $35 would change their annual contract from $6,800 to approximately $8,150. It was also the recommendation of the Joint Fire Board that the Fire Department offer each jurisdiction 3 -year contracts for fire protection at the $35 per parcel amount. Contract arrangements in the past have typically been for three years, and this will allow the jurisdictions to know in advance what their anticipated cost will be. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve the renewing of fire protection agreements with the City of Otsego and Silver Creek Township for a 3 -year term at the rate of $35 ti f� C0 per fire parcel. Under this alternative, Silver Creek Township would be expected to pay approximately $16,900 and the City of Otsego $8,150 in 1994. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION As recommended by the Joint Fire Board, 3 -year contract extensions are recommended at the $35 per parcel charge for both contract renewals. While the Joint Fire Board is not opposed to 1 -year contracts, it felt the offer of 3 - year contracts may be more acceptable. It was also noted by the Joint Fire Board that with the anticipated need of the fire department replacing one of its pumper trucks at an estimated cost of $200,000 in the near future, an increase in the contract fees would be appropriate at this time. Since both jurisdictions were advised last year that an increase may be forthcoming, we do not anticipate any objections from either community. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of proposed contracts; Map outlining service areas. FIRE PROTECTION AGREEMENT This AGREEMENT between the City and Township of Monticello, Minnesota, hereafter referred to as the JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT, and the Township of Silver Creek, hereafter referred to whether in whole or in part as the TOWNSHIP, both agree as follows: ARTICLE I The JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT agrees to furnish fire service and fire protection to all properties subject to the terms of this agreement, within the TOWNSHIP area, said area being set forth in EXHIBIT A, attached hereto. ARTICLE II The JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT will make a reasonable effort to attend all fires within the TOWNSHIP area upon notification of such fire or fires, and under the direction of the JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT Fire Chief, subject to the following terms and conditions: A. Road and weather conditions must be such that the fire run can be made with reasonable safety to the firemen and equipment of the JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT. The decision of the Fire Chief or other officer in charge of the fire department at the time that the fire run cannot be made with reasonable safety to firemen and equipment shall be final. B. The JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT shall not be liable to the TOWNSHIP for the loss or damage of any kind whatever resulting from any failure to furnish or any delay in furnishing firemen or fire equipment, or from any failure to prevent, control, or extinguish any fire, whether such loss or damage is caused by the negligence of the officers, agents, or employees of the JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT or its fire department, or otherwise. ARTICLE III The JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT further agrees: A. To keep and maintain in good order at its own expense the necessary equipment and fire apparatus for fire service and fire protection within the town area so serviced. B. The JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT shall provide sufficient manpower in its fire department to operate fire equipment. FIRE.AGR: 10/6/93 Page I /, _1 ARTICLE IV The TOWNSHIP agrees: A. To pay an annual fee of $35 for each tax identification parcel containing a building structure as determined by the Silver Creek Township Assessor and/or Wright County Auditors office for years 1994 through 1996. These fees shall include all standby charges and fire call costs. The total annual fee is estimated to be $ based on an estimated parcels 0 $35 each. B. Annual fee shall be paid as follows: prior to July 1 of each year - 50% prior to December 31 of each year - 50`/0 C. All payments must be made in accordance with this schedule to render this agreement effective for each calendar year of the contract. Additionally, any amount past due for 1993 must be paid by March 31, 1994. D. The JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT will submit a summary to the Township of all fires on a monthly basis. ARTICLE V In case an emergency arises within the JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT while equipment and personnel of the fire department are engaged in fighting a fire within the TOWNSHIP area, calls shall be answered in the order of their receipt unless the Fire Chief or other officer in charge of the fire department at the time otherwise directs. In responding to fire calls within the TOWNSHIP area, the Fire Chief or other officer in charge shall dispatch only such personnel and equipment as in his opinion can be safely spared from the JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT. ARTICLE VI In cases where the JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT receives a notification of an emergency other than a fire, and its assistance is requested in the area defined in Exhibit A of this contract, it shall respond to such emergency in the same munner as a fire as outlined in this contract. Charges for such service shall be as outlined in ARTICLE VI. ARTICLE VII The TOWNSHIP agrees to make a fire protection tax levy or otherwise to provide funds each year in an amount sufficient to pay the JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT the compensation agreed upon. FIRE.AGR: 10/5/93 Page 2 �} ARTICLE VIII This AGREEMENT shall be in force for a term of three (3) years beginning on January 1, 1994, and ending on the 31st day of December, 1996. This contract may be terminated upon a six-month notice by either party. CITY OF MONTICELLO By: Mayor Attest: Clerk Signed this day of 1994. TOWNSHIP OF MONTICELLO By: Chairperson Attest: Clerk Signed this day of 1994. FIREAGR: 10/6/93 TOWNSHIP OF SILVER CREEK By: Chairperson Attest: Clerk Signed this day of 1994. Page 3 0-1-1 EXHIBIT A This EXHIBIT is a part of the attached FIRE PROTECTION AGREEMENT, and its purpose is to designate the area covered under this AGREEMENT and referred to herein as the TOWNSHIP area. Therefore, the TOWNSHIP area in which protection for fires is agreed to involves the following sections of the TOWNSHIP herein: Sections 9, 14, 15, 16, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 34, 35, 36, North half of Section 20, Section 21 except Southwest Quarter, and Southeast Quarter of Southeast Quarter of Section 33, Township 122, Range 26; Section 1, 2, 11, 12, 13, 14 except Southwest Quarter, all in Township 121, Range 26. CITY OF MONTICELLO TOWNSHIP OF SILVER CREEK By: By: Mayor Chairperson Attest: Attest: Clerk Clerk TOWNSHIP OF MONTICELLO By: Chairperson Attest: Clerk FIRE.AGR: 1015/93 Page 4 /g 7 j'I' 4FrZ� D/f iPl'i {',1Jn11''c�G =k< SILVER CREEK ':�„p'^,., °' - •' a ; ,j ? J s f sr.creun�e coi..*.' , rl 73�41'�Z�[° - '`� '�Mi: ///M, ,j `i!` 1•}lig,.,.'"..i%-`a.:•... it ,,,i _!-�.,�,��r ,�i�{-M ".'y�'`l. r:r�;��ir_.+�I ••' � :i5•I •w,M'.•,'-7 fl y� : r`^: f{ ry� .u..p l.c � _ - °",,:�..- 4tJ �• ..,• .. "� _:-..•-;,..I:yl_ I, «'#�"- " ��q _.=.7'� �. .54j1j,r�:a«'mss"e��°'�'• i� [4""'l j, jar,. �,i�A '�1,.-� c�%<«. �'�";,y; `�""�,�,•"`"� M -^� ' Itl .°,'€�' ; � ..� `.. •�. �! �« ^%" aie'�`.i NTN � L;{��.` �^ .� b �1: ,• ,4 a !amts WE s �" 2r�.;-'n' 'i s:� : oL: e i ,>. •r••• s , 10 +j { tyk"'���'i e, �• n A A NAR/A •—�•„"; ~ .,"=t `wyaso f.�N r,. 77tt 7A 1-E • P;RX 'rs.`w:r... .�. S'I lS �St f , � �^ ,.�., 1 e � �..'. � �'t{i ,°.T ! +rt � � �;, � • L1r N °" ^ C 'C, "'l. -y f���6' 'tw (•.-+••��� -+,S' '.. �Gv y�,�,�„ W r9'.�� •y�.rrW^�'Y� Y'N�I ���ST ��•,w u��y __, 'y '4 � l��i .. 1 i�: ..r• yr f . .,.: . y o�.)4 v^J�t8... .wrr. • S A.vL �i `7� � +: rr '"• "�' •� • A r✓w�.0 � �..n �>j.Y ^� t,�' ,ayw..w : ..1' �,'`�+3, [: of ".i i a u u ".'�'�,•r',. wij i �' il�If7 ��_+� 1�� .�i � fie'-}t'�.1`,l.•r�' Srr.1l��R •gip r�� y• �7ry,• j` .. � �, FIRE PROTECTION AGREEMENT This AGREEMENT between the City and Township of Monticello, Minnesota, hereafter referred to as the JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT, and the City of Otsego, hereafter referred to whether in whole or in part as the CITY, both agree as follows: ARTICLE I The JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT agrees to furnish fire service and fire protection to all properties subject to the terms of this agreement, within the CITY area, said area being set forth in EXHIBIT A, attached hereto. ARTICLE II The JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT will make a reasonable effort to attend all fires within the CITY area upon notification of such fire or fires, and under the direction of the JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT fire chief, subject to the following terms and conditions: A. Road and weather conditions must be such that the fire run can he made with reasonable safety to the firemen and equipment of the JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT. The decision of the fire chief or other officer in charge of the fire department at the time that the fire run cannot be made with reasonable safety to firemen and equipment shall be final. B. The JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT shall not he liable to the CITY for the loss or damage of any kind whatever resulting from any failure to furnish or any delay in furnishing firemen or fire equipment, or from any failure to prevent, control, or extinguish any fire, whether such loss or damage is caused by the negligence of the officers, agents, or employees of the JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT or its fire department, or otherwise. ARTICLE III The JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT further agrees: A. To keep and maintain in good order at its own expense the necessary equipment and fire apparatus for fire service and fire protection within the town area so serviced. B. The JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT shall provide sufficient manpower in its fire department to operate fire equipment. PROTECT.AGR: 10/6/93 Page Ico-- J ARTICLE IV The CITY agrees: A. To pay an annual fee of $35 for each tax identification parcel as determined by the Otsego City Assessor and/or Wright County Auditors office for years 1994 through 1996. These fees shall include all standby charges and fire call costs. The total annual fee is estimated to be $ based on an estimated parcels ® $35 each. B. Annual fee shall be paid as follows: prior to January 1 of each year - 2.5% prior to April 1 of each year - 25% prior to July 1 of each year -25% prior to October 1 of each year - 25% C. All payments must he made in accordance with this schedule to render this agreement effective for each calendar year of the contract. D. The .JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT will submit a summary to the City of all fires on a monthly basis. ARTICLE V In case an emergency arises within the .JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT while equipment and personnel of the fire department are engaged in fighting a fire within the CITY area, calls shall be answered in the order of their receipt unless the fire chief or other officer in charge of the fire department at the time otherwise directs. In responding to fire calls within the CITY area, the fire chief or other officer in charge shall dispatch only such personnel and equipment as in his opinion can be safely spared from the JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT. ARTICLE VI In cases where the JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT receives a notification of an emergency other than a fire, and its assistance is requested in the area defined in Exhibit A of this contract, it shall respond to such emergency in the same manner as a fire as outlined in this contract. Charges for such service shall be as outlined in ARTICLE VI. ARTICLE VII The CITY agrees to make a fire protection tax levy or otherwise to provide funds each year in an amount sufficient to pay the JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT the compensation agreed upon. PROTECT.AGR: 10/5/93 Page '�� ARTICLE VIII This AGREEMENT shall be in force for a term of three (3) years beginning on January 1, 1994, and ending on the 31st day of December, 1996. This contract may be terminated upon a six-month notice by either party. CITY OF MONTICELLO By: Mayor Attest: Clerk Signed this day of , 1994. TOWNSHIP OF MONTICELLO By: Chairperson Attest: Clerk Signed this day of , 1994. PROTECT.AGR: 10/5/93 CITY OF OTSEGO By: Mayor Attest: Clerk Signed this day of 1994. Page & EXHIBIT A This EXHIBIT is a part of the attached FIRE PROTECTION AGREEMENT, and its purpose is to designate the area covered under this AGREEMENT and referred to herein as the CITY area. Therefore, the CITY area in which protection for fires is agreed to involves the following sections of the CITY herein: Area: No. of Parcels Range 24 Unplatted Areas Section 10 4 Section 14 30 Section 15 31 Section 22 14 Section 23 19 Section 26 21 Section 27 11 Plats: Island View Estates 93 Arrowhead Estates 4 Billstroms Riverview Addition 8 E -Z View Hills 4 TOTAL NO. OF PARCELS 239 CITY OF MONTICELLO CITY OF OTSEGO By: By: Mayor Mayor Attest: Attest: Clerk Clerk TOWNSHIP OF MONTICELLO By: Chairperson Attest: Clerk PROTECT.AGR: 10/5/93 Page!- l� v.00.ree by: Ban Map by: crr4O8 1- If=. t OTSEGO r ON TIM OW" R1M ROAD Council Agenda - 10/11/93 13. Consideration to adopt a Central Minnesota Initiative Fund's Sponsorine Unit of Government Resolution on behalf of The H -Window Company. (O.K.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND The City Council is being asked to consider the adoption of a Sponsoring Unit of Government Resolution on behalf of The H -Window Company. This resolution is a normal procedure of the final application process for the Central Minnesota Initiative Fund (CMIF). The CMIF is a private non-profit rural development corporation committed to providing financial assistance to programs which promote and strengthen Central Minnesota. The fund is supported by McKnight Foundation and Farmers Home Administration (FmHA), and provides financial assistance to businesses located in the counties of Benton, Cass, Chisago, Crow Wing, Isanti, Kanabec, Mille Lacs, Morrison, Pine, Sherburne, Steams, Todd, Wadena, and Wright. The requested CM!M dollar amount. for H -Window is $100,000. This amount is to fill the $100,000 "gap" created by the reduction of State dollars anticipated for final approval ($500,000 to $400,000). The preliminary CMIF application has received approval from the Initiative Board. The CMIF equipment loan terms arc requested at 514 interest rate amortized over 10 years. The H -Window expansion will increase the property's estimated market value by a minimum of $731,200 and create 60 new jobs. Adoption of this resolution will satisfy the requirements of the 1987 Rural and Economic Development Act; and it will affirm that the City of Monticello has received it resolution request on behalf of the H -Window Company, that the resolution is consistent with the local economic development purpose, and that the Council supports the H -Window expansion project as submitted to the CMIF Board. The City of Monticello is not liable for the CMIF. After discussion of the project and application, the Council is asked to consider adoption of the CM I F Sponsoring Unit of Government Resolution on behalf of the H -Window Company. 17 Council Agenda - 10/11/93 B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to adopt the Central Minnesota Initiative Fund Sponsoring Unit of Government Resolution on behalf of the H -Window Company. 2. Motion to deny adoption of the said resolution. 3. Motion to table the agenda item. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative q1. Staff views the H -Window expansion project to be consistent with the local economic development purpose and an asset to the City of Monticello. If approval is received from the State and the CMIF, this would complete the public financing portion for this expansion project. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the resolution for adoption. to RESOLUTION 93 - SPONSORING UNIT OF GOVERNMENT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions and requirements of the 1957 Rural and Economic Development Act, the local governing unit is required to issue a Sponsoring Resolution on behalf of businesses requesting financing through the Central Minnesota Initiative Fund's partnership with the State of Minnesota's Challenge Grant Program, and WHEREAS, this body has received a request to issue a resolution on behalf of H - Window Company, and WHEREAS, it is consistent with the purpose of this local governing unit to encourage employment, enhance the tax base, and create more opportunity for its residents. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this local governing unit supports the project submitted by H -Window Company to the Central Minnesota Initiative Fund's partnership with the State of Minnesota's Challenge Grant Program. Minutes of the meeting of this Local Governing Unit adopting this resolution are attached hereto and made a part hereof. Adopted this 11th day of October, 1993. Mayor City Administrator Council Agenda - 10/11/93 14. Consideration to adout a Central Minnesota Initiative Fund's Saonsorinu Unit of Government Resolution on behalf of Standard Iron and Wire Works. Inc. (O.K.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND The City Council is being asked to consider the adoption of a Sponsoring Unit of Government Resolution on behalf of Standard Iron and Wire Works, Inc. This resolution is a normal procedure of the final application process for the Central Minnesota Initiative Fund (CMIF). The CMIF is a private non-profit rural development corporation committed to providing financial assistance to programs which promote and strengthen Central Minnesota. The fund is supported by McKnight Foundation and Farmers Home Administration (FmHA), and provides financial assistance to businesses located in the counties of Benton, Cass, Chisago, Crow Wing, Isanti, Kanabec, Mille Lacs, Morrison, Pine, Sherburne, Stearns, Todd, Wadena, and Wright. The requested CMIF dollar amount for Standard Iron is $100,000. This amount, plus Wright County's request for Suite dollars in the amount of $250,000, the forthcoming Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund (GMEF) dollar request of $75,000, and equity of $25,000, will finance the company's $450,000 Horizontal Machining Center. The preliminary CM IF application has received approval from the Initiative Board. The CMIF equipment loan terms are requested at 61&, interest rate amortized over 10 years with a 7 -year balloon payment. The balloon payment is necessary to comply with the GMEF policy guidelines. The Standard Iron project has a minimun estimated market value of $1,250,000 and creates 115 jobs over 3 years. Adoption of this resolution will satisfy the requirements of the 1987 Rural and Economic Development Act, and it will affirm LhoL the City of Monticello has received it resolution request on behalf of Standard Iron, that the resolution is consistent with the local economic development purpose, and that the Council supports the Standard Iron project as submitted tai the CMIF Board. The City of Monticello is not liable for the CMIF. After discussion of the project and application, the Council is asked to consider adoption of the CMIF Sponsoring Unit of Government Resolution on behalf of Standard Iron and Wire Works, Inc. 19 Council Agenda - 10/11/93 B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to adopt the Central Minnesota Initiative Fund Sponsoring Unit of Government Resolution on behalf of Standard Iron and Wire Works, Inc. 2. Motion to deny adoption of the said resolution. 3. Motion to table the agenda item. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative A. Staff views Standard Iron's project to be consistent with the local economic development purpose and an asset to the City of Monticello. If approval is received from the State, the CMIF, and the EDA/Council, this would complete the public financing portion for the Horizontal Machining Center. An additional $805,000 of equipment will be financed by the bank, SBA, and equity. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the resolution for adoption. 20 RESOLUTION 93 SPONSORING UNIT OF GOVERNMENT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions and requirements of the 1987 Rural and Economic Development Act, the local governing unit is required to issue a Sponsoring Resolution on behalf of businesses requesting financing through the Central Minnesota Initiative Fund's partnership with the State of Minnesota's Challenge Grant Program, and WHEREAS, this body has received a request to issue a resolution on behalf of Standard Iron & Wire Works, Inc., and WHEREAS, it is consistent with the purpose of this local governing unit to encourage employment, enhance the tax base, and create more opportunity for its residents. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this local governing unit supports the project submitted by Standard Iron & Wire Works, Inc., to the Central Minnesota Initiative Fund's partnership with the State of Minnesota's Challenge Grant Program. Minutes of the meeting of this Local Governing Unit adopting this resolution are attached hereto and made a part hereof. Adopted this 11th day of October, 1993. Mayor City Administrator CITY OF MONTICELLO MONTHLY BUILDING DEPARTMENT REPORT Moron 0 Saplom0ar. 1993 PERMITS 9 USES Last Tnl. Sam$Manor Lan Y.., Thb Yel PERMITS ISSUED Mph AUGUST IAWIn SEPTEMBER Lav Yaw To Dale To Data RESIDENTIAL Numba7 16 24 17 116 111 ValuauM 1725,70000 3972.10000 1502.60000 $2,%].20000 $4.222.40000 Fan 12.592.75$6.686 84 $4.11596 127.19107 L71, 715 32 Surcharge 1160.65 6487.55 $75055 $146465 $2.09760 COMMERCIAL Num1Na 7 2 2 19 22 VLuallon 11,019.600.00 $226.500.00 317,00000 $1,005.90000 $1.697.20000 Fen 17,04192 $1,792.05 $11900 $7487.19 $12.61697 Suran.rgn 9509.60 $11700 $650 1501.70 11842.10 INDUSTRIAL N.m 1 2 4 ...... 160.200 00 63U.7c.0 00 9751.767 GG Fan 475966 97.041 98 $2.96911 S-11.194,1197010 $192.75 $17518 PLUMBING N-1- 6 14 1049 SO Fan $14600 SW OD $22800 $1,275,00 $1,59700 Sumhwgn $7.00 $7.00 LS 00 $2150 a2800 OTHERS Numb. 5 1 V.1-11. $000 1%.900 00 ran $5000 $75902 Surcharge $250 $.^920 TOTAL 9PERMITS 29 41 29 197 290 TOTAL VALUATION 11,714.900.00 11,218.600.00 9515,00000 114,343.800 00 98,728.26700 TOTAL FEES 19,76067 $9,50655 11.520 g6 177.05120 $40,01006 TOTAL SURCHARGES $67745 1617.65 $202,05 $2,16500 $7,17376 CURRENT MONTH FEES NUMBER TO DATE: PERMITNATURE Nut".Pamll swchalga Va1U.11- This YNr L=Year Singh amp cy 17 $6.50711 $45110 $71.,20000 1977 U-..0 0 Muhl-F-Ill 2 1 Crohn W I $1.77705 $1,250 $225,00000 7 7 IAew ll. Signa 0 0 Puptla OMOs 2 0 A111 IIATIONNeEPA,R D. 110 1 1 1171.00 M q 117,10000 M 66 CammwClal 1 11100 1050 11,50000 29 16 InOuvnn 1 1750 rib 17010 160,20000 7 1 PLUMBING All Type 14 93M 00 17 00 6000 la 49 ACCESSORY 9IRUCTURES 9.emming Pod. 0 0 0... 3 MS 00 1150 M.500 00 22 11 IFMPORARV PCRMIT 00 IN.MCN IRON 2 S TOTALS 99,501,65 U13 es 11,218,800,00 727 197 CITY OF MONTICELLO INDIVIDUAL PERMIT ACTIVITY REPORT Month 01 SaWamber, 1993 (PERMIT NUMBER a DESCRIPTION TYPE _ NAME&CCAnON 93-2129 INou. en0 Garage SF Value Plus Homes/5401 Falcon AVenue 93-2i 29 {House andGarage_ gSF Wubams OO -on and construchml8tw aiverwew Onve 93-2130 1Hou. and Garage Retool IAD IROOaId antl Rom POtius/bU3 Weal bin bVee, 93-2t 3l JHouaa and Garage r SF Vatua PrW MomosaKon Avenue Sr 193-2132 House and GWago Rer001 EIw00d and St,rlayyS3U Haaland1337 Ri"-Ow Dnvu 193-2133 {Hou. and Garayo ISF IVatue Plus HOmOvb5A1 Falcon Avenue 93-2134 JHWW and Gwaao Retool JAD (Cud LarsoN241 Mlsersiup Unva 93-2535 (Glazed Porch Addfw AO (Gerald D0hna/t335 Waft Rlwu S1fa01, Lot lU 193-2139 HourO and Galata $F IValu3 Plus HOMOs154W FVe alcOn Anuo 193-2737 House RetoolAD (W4114m E,!,OIl /1569 West Nwp Suoot 193-2138 lDopk A�IFrenF antl Joan Opay/tqO llloCreit Cl+c.9 193-2139 IDack AD 1Jamas and Alice AahwOV1U/ Uakvaor. UtCia 93-2140 IHouso and Garage $F IVaIUO Pius Homosr5131 Marin Unve 93-2141 1tHou. and Garago $F �Vakro Plus Homaw5331 Slarhrl8 E n,- -2U2 iHousO and Garago Rastdo IAD ICathenne VOW 12 Kew t.rnloY Unwa (193 93-2143 (Hou. antl Garago ISF {Vic Hallman CanuructioNU59r Ulllald Avenue NE (93-2144 and Ortega ISF {Vahu, Plus Homo515421 Falcon AVOnua �H-so 193-2145 Hou. :noflange ISF IP,OSI !e Bwldanit Its EnNColl ball j93-2146 (Hou. and GaragegSF {Vacua?W{HomasJb491 Snrnlrg Un. 93-2147 IHWI. and Garage ISF I Value Plus HOmow";U Yalcon A"o w 93-2148 iConvomOnca Store IC IHoway Station Sam, 23 West ltl, Sttaet 03-2149 1Dack 1AD IDonnle and Myrna Amo lsm*5i tau aro blrorll 93-2150 (Homo and Ga Igo ISF (Ryan ane Boll, i6aaCAotV15S1 gnat aakee BaWema 934151 Mouse and Glar Ret OrllA� D 1JOWpn HolthauNl US Washulglon W100i 93-2152 Huu. and Gan�ge Rerout IAD Lurry and Joyce Wlppo11707 East O'asdway 03-2153 IDptm Porcn Addaw - IAC IRlv01 Park View Apenments121a waw Hrval Sllael 193-2154 161ag Add Figs S Fuund. Wall I 11 I ;AU INA WCO M1nna.ta, Inc /1324 East DakwoUve Od n I I I FhEB VALUATION PERMIT (SURCHARGEPLUMBINfl ISURCHARGE1 553,300 00 $388 41 1 726 65 $2300 $0 50 f 103,600 00 $587 52 551 90 531 00 $4 50 $I,aw 00 6150000 $0sod I I 5l13, 1(w UO 5428.10 $31 55 S2300 $050 I SI.Sw Vu sib UJ 50501 I I 1 $58.800 00 1 $40059 1 $28.40 1 $2300 Soso L St,500W 615.00 1 $050 I t1.50009 $1500So, SO 1 $58.500 00 $40747 i 529 25 1 $2300 1150 52.500 W 115.000 SO.50 I i 5,,50000 $25.00+ t050I 1 I $1.50000 1 7!500 10.50 { SSB. I UU 0506 1405 85 i29 05 723 00 $050 1 . W $3664 t IN 65 f23 00 f0 50 62.9w W I $L9 do It 45 I I $98.00000 1 $567 45 1 $4900 1 $27 00 I $O 50 I $53,30000 f $38641 g $2665 1 S2300 1 1050 I $93,200 00 f $54801 Ij $4660 1 $2100 { t0 50 $b8. i UU uU2446.35 i $34 05 i $2300 1050 Sbll 50 . W i $40747 I S29 25 I $2300 S050 I f225.0U0001 $1.07700, $I 12.501 $A1001 SO 501 I 5,,4w UO 1 $15.401 $0.501 I I I S96.2O0 00 I$560 16 ( HB 10 $2700 { $O SO 1 $1,50000 f1500I $o 50 S l 500 W $1 00 i $0 90 _ 00 1 6255,60 { $050 1 $60.200 00$460 40 $30 10 TOTALS I $1,210,80000 $7.647.60 $6178.85 1380.00 { 5700 CITY OF MONTICELLO MIVIDUAL PERMIT ACTIVITY REPORT Month at Sepbmow. 1993 FEES I (PERMIT NUMBEH DESCRIPTION TYPE NAME&OCATION VALUATION PERMIT SURCHARGE PLUMBING SURCHARGE( I PLAN REVIEW i93-2128 House and Gaspe SF Value Plus Homa✓5401 Falcon Avonue 13864 I 193-2129 House ane Garage SF Wn14ms Daa and Con✓rucluxV680 Riverview Orive 158.75 I 193-2131 House and Garage SF IVolue Plus Nome✓5330 Falcon Avenue $42.61 I 193-2133 .louse And Garspa SF �VauA Plus Homes/5541 Falcon Ave uo $40,06 I 193-27 36 House end Gaage SF IVAue Plus Nome✓5400 Falcon Aw $40 75 193-2140 House And G✓ape ISF IVaue Plus Home✓5131 Martel Dnva N0.59 193-2141 House and OaapA ISF Veale Plus Nome✓5331 Slerun�Orrve t36,& 193-2143 House And Garspo ISF IVIG Hellman ContttuclroN9597 Glsud Avenue NE [56.75 93-2144 House and Ganpo ISF 1Val. Pus Home✓$421 Falcon Avanue $3864 93-2145 Mouse and Gan pa ISF 1Proaige Bullder✓1 115 Endkon Ti" $5480 93-2146 House antl Oanpo ISF IVANs Pim Home✓539t S1Arllnp Onve N4 M 93-2147 IHpuso and Gu4ga 1SF IVAIUI Pus Homo✓5480 Falcon Avenue N0 75 93-2146 IConvanwnca $two IC IHolidAy Slnuon Slam 23 Went lin S1roe1 $70005 93-2750 ( House Antl Oan{In ISF IRron ana Beth IMACAQW2531 StallOakesBoulevard $5602 93-2154 (Slog. Add Flee A Founa Wall AI INAWCO minneaota, Inc./1324 Eno Oakwood Onvo $29926 I I I I I I TOTAL PLAN REVIEW I I �$1,S9e95 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TOTAL REVENUE I $10.212.20 _ INFORMATIONAL ITEM October 11, 1993 Enforcement of earaee sale occurrences --Arnold Strehler. (R.W.) This note is intended to provide the Council with a brief background on the possible appearance at the Council meeting by Mr. Arnold Strehler complaining about harassment by City staff concerning his garage sale operation. Mr. Arnold Strehler, of 1115 West Broadway (adjacent to the West Side Market), was contacted by myself on Thursday afternoon concerning his conducting what the City staff felt was his fourth garage sale this year. As some of you may recall, the City enacted an ordinance a few years ago that limited the number of garage sales a person could have to three per year; and in Mr. Strehler's case, it becomes very obvious when he has a garage sale due to the traffic problems and congestion it causes. Both Jeff and myself become aware of when Mr. Strehler has garage sales simply because we drive by this property on a daily basis. Both Jeff and I, along with Gary Anderson, will make a mental note and have kept a Ing of the occasions when Mr. Strehler does have garage sales. From our records, Mr. Strehler has had a garage sale on the weekends of May 7, May 14, and July 30, in addition to the one he just had this past weekend, October 8. Upon questioning Mr. and Mrs. Strehler as to why they were having their fourth garage sale, the Strehlers denied that they had held one on May 7 and that the City staff must have just noticed that their garage door was open and it looked like they were having.a garage We. While there may not have been a garage sale sign at the end of their driveway on this date, I du believe that it appeared to the staff that a garage sale was taking place due to the fact that people were stopping and approaching the property as they would during a normal garage sale. While there may not be a garage sale sign, Mr. Strehler has set up a welcome sign at the end of his driveway, giving the appearance of an attention -getting device for a garage sale. Giving Mr. Strehler the benefit of the doubt, 1 did allow him to continue with his garage sale this past weekend and advised him that this would be the last one this year. Mr. Strehler did comment that he feels the City is harassing him unnecessarily and that the City is not enforcing this ordinance against other property owners. I informed him that we do keep track of some property owners who appear to have frequent garage sales; we do not make a habit of marking down every garage sale that occurs in Monticello, and in his case, it is very obvious due to his location along West Broadway and the traffic problems it does create. While most garage sales are intended as a family activity that allows a homeowner to get rid of unwanted items, in Mr. Strehler's case, I firmly believe that it is bordering on a flea market type commercial activity and not just a normal garage sale. Mr. Strehler and family have had probably more garage sales than anyone in Monticello the past live years, but for one reason or another, he never seems to be able to get rid of his merchandise. It certainly appears that the items are continually replenished, which is why I believe this is closer to resembling a business venture versus a residential rummage sale.