City Council Agenda Packet 03-11-1996AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, March 11, 1996 - 7 p.m
Mayor: Brad Fyle
Council Members: Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst, Brian Stumpf, Tom Perrault
1. Call to order.
2. Approval of minutes of the special meeting held February 26 and the regular
meeting held February 26, 1996.
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
4. Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints.
5. Consent agenda.
A. Consideration of approving gambling license for Ducks Unlimited
Banquet.
6. Consideration of approval of preliminary plat of the Briar Oakes Second
Addition. Applicant, C & S of St. Cloud.
7. Consideration of a conditional use permit which would allow expansion of an
office building in a PZM zone. Applicant, Ruff Auto Parts.
8. Consideration of purchasing a home and 365 ft of riverfront property west of
Bridge Park.
9. Consideration of appointing Council representative for union contract
negotiations.
10. Adjournment. p n
AIX 1 %i ��" �� coli �y P6110x
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, February 26, 1898 - 7 p.m.
Members Present: Brad Fyle, Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst, Brian Stumpf, Tom
Perrault
Members Absent: None
Approval of minutes of the reguinr meeting held Februnry 12 1996,
A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON AND SECONDED BY TOM
PERRAULT TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD
FEBRUARY 12, 1996, AS WRITTEN. Motion carried unanimously.
Onnaidarnfinn of ailelino its ma to tha noanela
I
Assistant Administrator Jeff O'Neill informed Council that the realtor
representing the owners of a riverfront home west of Bridge Park,
Block 64, Lots 1-6, made an offer of $143,000 for the City to buy their
home and property. The amount was based on an appraisal
authorized by the HRA minus $20,000, which was the estimated cost
to repair recent fire damage to the home. This estimate was based on
a preliminary review of the fire damage by the insurance adjuster.
O'Neill noted that prior to the fire damage occurring, the Planning
Commission and Parks Commission recommended that the HRA
purchase the property due to the presence of a willing seller and the
unique opportunity to purchase riverfront property, which they
believed would be o key component in the downtown/riverfront
development plan. In addition, purchasing the property would be
consistent with the preliminary comprehensive plan, which identifies
improved use of riverfront property as a goal. Waiting to purchase the
property in the future would add a great deal to the cost since the
owners would likely repair Cho fire damage to the home and perhaps
rebuild the garage that was recently lost.
O'Neill stated, however, that staff was concerned that the cost to
restore the home would be more than $20,000; therefore, it was
recommended that the fire damage amount be reviewed and
determined jointly by a City representative and a representative from
the insurance agency.
Page 1 20A
Council Minutes - 2/26/96
Parks Commission member Earl Smith stated that the Parks
Commission believes purchasing this property would be an
opportunity for the City to boost the current development efforts of the
community and would begin the extension and use of the riverfront.
Dick Frie, Chair of the Planning Commission, noted that the
commissions were looking for direction from the Council and that it
would make sense to purchase the property now with the intent to
develop in the future.
Public Works Director John Simola informed Council that the sanitary
sewer and street abutting the property would need replacing in the
future; however, improvements would not be necessary in the future if
the City purchased the property at this time.
HRA Chairperson Al Larson reported that the HRA was not
comfortable purchasing property without a development plan, and it
was their view that the decision should be made by the Council. He
also noted that the HRA was not against purchasing the property;
however, their attorney had informed them that it may be difficult for
the HRA to legally purchase the property using tax increment
financing (TIF), as it's not considered a blight area and would not
generate any revenue for a TIF district.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill noted that the property is identified
for potential purchase in the redevelopment plan and that, statutorily,
the HRA would have the authority to purchase it if it so desires.
Larson suggested that once the redevelopment plan is completed, the
HRA could buy the property back from the City.
Rich Carlson, real estate agent for the property owner, noted that the
sellers accepted the terms of the previous purchase offer made by the
HRA but requested an increase in the option amount from $2,600 to
$5,000; however, due to the recent fire, the sellers would like a
decision rendered so that either the sale can take place or they can
repair the home and move back in.
ANTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON
AND SECONDED BY CLINT HERBST TO AUTHORIZE, PURCHASE OF
BLOCK 84, LOTS 1.5. AT A PRICE ESTABLISHED BY COUNCIL OR BY A
SECOND APPRAISAL.
City Attorney Paul Weingarden reminded Council that the seller's
insurance company is a third party in the transaction, over which the
City would have no control.
Page 2 y
Council Minutes - 2126/96
AFTER DISCUSSION, THE MOTION WAS AMENDED BY SHIRLEY
ANDERSON AND SECONDED BY CLINT HERBST TO APPROVE THE
PURCHASE OF BLOCK 64, LOTS 1.5, AT THE APPRAISED VALUE OF
$163,000 MINUS A FIRE DAMAGE AMOUNT TO BE DETERMINED
JOINTLY BY A CITY REPRESENTATIVE AND A REPRESENTATIVE
FROM THE INSURANCE AGENCY. COUNCIL WILL REVIEW VALUES AT
THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULED FOR MARCH 11, 1996.
Voting in favor: Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst, Brian Stumpf, Tom
Perrault. Opposed: Brad Fyle. It was Fyle's view that the property
should be purchased with HRA funds rather than the City general
fund. Motion passed.
None.
A, rnwdderation of enArming Annual Board of Revi w date for 1996.
Recommendation: Confirm the Board of Review date as May 8,
1996, at 7 p.m. Amended by Council: Set Board of Review date for
May 15, 1996, at 7 p.m.
Ca Rid ra .ion of nuthnriAng.hink Amnegy Day.
Recommendation: Authorize Saturday, May 4, 1998, as the 9th
Annual Junk Amnesty Day in Monticello and direct staff to prepare
the activities based upon those provided last year.
C. Consideration of npprovi annual CSAN maintenance w m n
with Wrighto un y. Recommendation: Approve the annual
CSAH maintenance agreement with Wright County as proposed.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON AND
SECONDED BY TOM PERRAULT TO APPROVE ITEMS B AND C ON THE
CONSENT AGENDA AS RECOMMENDED AND APPROVE. ITEM A AS AMENDED
BY COUNCIL. Motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Fylc opened the public hearing.
Page 3 0
Council Minutes - 2/26/96
Assistant Administrator O Neill reported that Cook Construction requested
vacation of a portion of Meadow Lane, which would create a larger lot for
home development on Lot 8, Block 1, Meadow Oak 4th Addition. Because
there would be only a simple pedestrian path extended to the west of this
location rather than a roadway to connect Meadow Oak 4th Addition and
Briar Oakes Estate, there did not appear to be a problem with vacating 15 ft
of the road right-of-way. In addition, the request included vacation of the
existing 12 -ft utility easement on the southern boundary of the lot, which
would then be re-established on the new lot line in the area of the former
roadway.
O'Neill went on to note that the original request heard by the Planning
Commission was for a variance to the 20 -ft corner lot side yard setback
requirement; however, Planning Commission denied the variance request
based on the finding that a hardship was not demonstrated. It was the
Planning Commission's recommendation that the City vacate 15 ft of the
unnecessary roadway and 12 -ft utility easement.
Mayor Fyle closed the public hearing.
After discussing the pros and con's of vacating a portion of the roadway, it
was concluded that the proposed home could be built on the lot by vacating
5 ft of the utility easement and that the lot did not constitute a corner lot
because the former roadway is now intended for pathway purposes only;
therefore, the 20 -ft corner lot side yard setback would not apply.
A MOTION WAS MADE. BY CLINT HERBST AND SECONDED BY BRIAN
STUMPF TO APPROVE VACATING 5 FT OF THE UTILITY EASEMENT ALONG
THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF LOT 8, BLOCK 1, MEADOW OAK 4TH
ADDITION, BASED ON THE FINDING THAT BECAUSE THE AREA SOUTH OF
THE IAT WILL NEVER BE DEVELOPED AS A ROADWAY, THE LOT DID NOT
QUALIFY AS A CORNER LOT; THEREFORE, THE HOME MAY BE BUILT USING
15 -FT SETBACK BETWEEN STRUCTURES, WITH AMPLE ROOM REMAINING
FOR ANY UTILITY REPAIRS NEEDED IN THE FUTURE. Motion carried
unanimously.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill reported that John Bichler was appealing
the recent decision of the Architectural Review Board to deny approval of
building plans for a home with a roof pitch of 8/12. According to the
restrictive covenants for the Eastwood Knoll subdivision, all homes must
have a roof pitch of 8/12 or greater unless it is shown that there is
Page 4 ( i)
Council Minutes - 2/26/96
"architectural significance" associated with a shallower pitch. The Board
based their denial on the finding that the ranch style home as proposed did
not demand a 6/12 pitch; however, John Bichler disagreed, noting that the
larger roof presence created by an 8/12 pitch would detract from the
appearance of the home.
Charles Bichler, attorney for John Bichler, stated that the Architectural
Review Board has the authority to approve the 6/12 pitch based on the
finding that the 40 -ft width of the home is architecturally significant, and the
8/12 pitch would detract from the curb appeal and make the home
unbalanced. He stated that approving this plan would not violate the
covenants due to the width of the home; however, a smaller home with a 6/12
pitch would be a violation.
John Bichler noted that he has agreed to include an 8112 roof pitch on the
garage.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY CLINT HERBST AND
SECONDED BY TOM PERRAULT TO DENY APPEAL OF THE EASTWOOD
KNOLL ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD AND OFFER TO BUY THE LOT
BACK FROM BICHLER AT THE ORIGINAL PURCHASE PRICE. Voting in favor:
Clint Herbst, Tom Perrault, Shirley Anderson. Opposed: Brian Stumpf, Brad
Fyle, as it was their view that the 40 -ft width of the home would meet the
architecturally significant exception. Motion passed.
City Administrator Rick Wolfsteller reported that in 1991, Congress
expressed concern with the abuse of alcohol and drugs in the transportation
industry and adopted the Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act.
This federal legislation required transportation workers performing safety
sensitive driving functions to submit to pro -employment, post -accident,
random, reasonable suspicion, and return -to -duty and follow-up alcohol and
drug testing. Wolfsteller noted that the City of Monticello must now comply
with the federal rules and regulations for conducting testing as outlined. It
wns suggested that the City join forces with the Association of Minnesota
Counties/Minnesota Counties Insurance Trust Medtox Drug and Alcohol
Testing Program. In addition, he recommended that the Council adopt the
proposed drug and alcohol testing policy outlining the circumstances under
which testing will occur, procedure for testing, rights of the employees, and
ramifications of reflusing to take a test or failure to pass a test.
Councilmember Herbst suggested that the City check into joining a larger
testing pool, which can reduce some of the expense of the program.
Page 5 0
Council Minutes - 2126/96
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON AND
SECONDED BY BRIAN STUMPF TO ADOPT THE EMPLOYEE DRUG AND
ALCOHOL TESTING POLICY FOR COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE DRIVERS
AS PRESENTED, AND DIRECT THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO INVESTIGATE
WHETHER THE CITY CAN JOIN A LARGER TESTING POOL. Motion carried
unanimously.
Public Works Director John Simola reported that staff had initially assumed
that the first stage digester cover could be replaced with the upgrade of the
entire wastewater treatment plant; however, recent inspections have shown
the cover to be in extremely poor condition, and HDR has suggested that the
City replace the cover with a floating cover identical to the one on the second
stage digester, which would also require an external mixer on the side of the
tank. Simola noted that a portion of the 16% contingency funds will be used
to cover the cost of the two mixers. He estimated the coat of replacement of
the first stage digester with one mixer without contingencies at $230,000.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON AND
SECONDED BY TOM PERRAULT TO APPROVE THE PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS FOR REPLACEMENT OF THE FIRST STAGE DIGESTER
COVER AND MIXER AT THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AND
AUTHORIZE ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS RETURNABLE MARCH 22, 1996.
Motion carried unanimously
10. ConaidernLon of setting a public information meeting on bioaoli a facility
npp kation.
Public Works Director Simola reported that staff is in the process of
assembling final data to be used for application to the PCA to operate a
biosolids facility on the Bohanon farm. Staff requested that Council sot a
date for a public information meeting in order to share information with the
general public and neighbors of the site prior to application to the PCA.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON AND
SECONDED BY TOM PERRAULT TO SET MARCH 2b, 1996, AT 6 P.M., ATCITY
HALL, AS A PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING REGARDING BIOSOLIDS
FACILITY APPLICATION. MOTION INCLUDES PUBLISHING A NOTICE IN THE
MONTI ....n T MFS AND MAILING NOTICE OF THE MEETING TO
NEIGHBORS AROUND THE BIOSOLIDS SITE. Motion carried unanimously.
Page 6 0
Council Minutes - 2/26/96
. .. 11 . 1 , .• •. 1
Assistant Administrator O'Neill reported that Mayor Fyle and other
members of the Council had requested that staff research the cost associated
with conducting a fireworks display in conjunction with the Riverfest
celebration. Staff obtained cost estimates utilizing Banner Fireworks
Display of Zimmerman, MN, which has conducted fireworks displays for the
Cities of Becker, Big Lake, and Elk River. It was estimated that the cost
would range between $5,000 and $8,000 for a 20 -minute display.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STUMPF AND
SECONDED BY CLINT HERBST TO AUTHORIZE CITY STAFF TO CONTRACT
WITH BANNER FIREWORKS DISPLAY OF ZIMMERMAN FOR CONDUCTING
FIREWORKS AT THE RIVERFEST CELEBRATION AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED
58,000. Motion carried unanimously.
1 1 1' f% 1 1 1 a• 1 N 1• 1' 1 1 f: N Illll 11 1 1: 1,' N 1 :'�/ 1,' ',/ 1 1'
• / : 1 6-0 ..Ww 011D.. W.IL9.: • 11 ' 1 , a 1111: 1 1
Assistant Administrator Jeff O'Neill requested that Council consider
replacing the contract service provider in the building department with a
full-time position and a pari -time secretary position. He noted that the cost
to complete the reorganization could be funded entirely by building
inspection fees and would not result in a large increase in the projected cost
to operate the department, as it would be off --set by the elimination of the
contract service fees.
O'Neill explained that under the proposed plan, the new full-time position
would be entitled Chief Building Official and would hold supervisory and site
plan review responsibilities. In addition, the position would be responsible
for implementing computerization of recordkeeping in the building
department. It was noted that performing site plan reviews in-house rather
than through City Engineer services would provide additional cost savings
for the City. The position was established at Grade 11, with a pay range of
$31,831 to $39,789.
O'Neill went on to note that the present Building Inspector position would
retain many of the current responsibilities, including maintenance of the civil
defense program; however, the focus of the position would be on plan review
and inspection. The point value and pay range would not change.
In regard to the part-time secretary position, staff noted that after
monitoring the Development Services Technician (DST) position for over a
year, it became apparent that the timo spent in the building department was
Page 7 020
Council Minutes - 2/26/96
closer to 75% rather than the 50% that was originally planned. This has left
little time for planning or project -related activities and no time for assistance
in the area of economic development. It was the recommendation of staff
that adding a part-time building department secretary would be the most
efficient way to handle the growth of the city, along with the additional
policies and procedures in the building department.
Councilmember Herbst noted that if the current Building Inspector should
apply for the Chief Building Official position, it was his view that, due to his
number of years of service, the City should make an effort to assist by
allowing him to attend computer and public relations classes if necessary.
He also suggested that there be a 6 -month probation period.
It was Councilmember Stumpfs view that if the Chief Building Official
position did not work out for the present inspector, he should be reinstated to
his previous position; however, staff and Council members noted that there is
a risk for anyone who applies for a different position within a company and
that the inspector position could not be held open.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill noted that the department reorganization as
presented would utilize individual talents as a team. Since the present
inspector's strengths are in the area of plan review and inspection, his job
would focus on those issues. The proposed new position would include site
plan review and inspection but would also include the added responsibilities
of administering building inspection processes and establishing department
priorities.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY CLINT HERBST AND
SECONDED BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON TO APPROVE REPLACING THE
CONTRACT INSPECTOR SERVICE WITH A NEW CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR
POSITION AND AUTHORIZE STAFF TO POST NOTICE OF THE VACANCY.
MOTION INCLUDES THE CITY ASSISTING THE PRESENT INSPECTOR WITH
NEEDED CLASSES IF HE FEELS HE CAN QUALIFY AND APPLIES FOR THE
NEW POSITION, MOTION ALSO INCLUDES A 6 -MONTH PROBATION PERIOD
FOR THE NEW POSITION. NO ADDITIONAL CLERICAL STAFF APPROVED AT
THIS TIME. Voting in favor: Clint Herbst, Shirley Anderson, Tom Perrault,
Brad Fyle. Opposed: Brian Stumpf. It was Stumpfs view that the City
should hire another building inspector rather than a Chief Building Official.
Motion passed.
Councilmember Shirley Anderson recommended that the Council discuss and
reconsider the part-time building secretary in the f iture, no sooner than
three months.
Page 8 '/
Council Minutes - 2/26/96
13. Consideration of bills for the month of February.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON AND
SECONDED BY TOM PERRAULT TO APPROVE THE BILLS FOR THE MONTH
OF FEBRUARY. Motion carried unanimously.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
Karen Doty
Office Manager
Page 9 9
Council Agenda - 3/11/96
6A. Con_afderation of nlipMving garabUng license annLication»Wrlol+t
County Ducks Unlimited. (R.W.)
A F.F .RF.N F AND BACKGROUND:
The Wright County Ducks Unlimited organization is again sponsoring a
raffle to be conducted as part of their banquet scheduled for May 6, 1996, at
the Monticello Roller Rink. This organization has obtained a gambling
license from the State for the past number of years for the same event, and
the City is not aware of any problems.
The State Gambling Control Board will automatically issue the raffle license
to the Ducks Unlimited organization unless the City Council specifically
passes a resolution prohibiting the issuance of the license. If the Council is
okay with the license being issued, no action is needed.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. If the Council does not have a problem with the State issuing this one -
day raffle license, no action is needed by the Council other than
acknowledging receipt of the application.
2. Council can adopt a resolution specifically prohibiting the issuance of
this license.
C. STAFF RECO MFNDATION:
It is recommended that alternative #1 be adopted by the Council, as we have
not been aware of any problems in the past with the banquet having a raffle
license.
D_ SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of gambling license application.
;:Organ/zatlon /nformation,�.� ��� � Y':�� • , •����
Organizatlon ame previous lawful gambli xemptlon number
l t)r►� �
Oil LW �aGks �I�,L,kj1 I X 86vla-9"TOv�
Street City ate Zip Code County
i0 �5 P�t-k fir. �o «��Io M�1 553"
Name of Ch he Exearttve Officer of organization (C O) Daytime Phone number of CEO
First Name Last 91
Loye- rJ 1G7vv%-A,%W
COPY
R
e� Minnesota Lawful Gambling
For Board Use Only
Application for Authorization for an
Foe Paid
Exemption from Lawful Gambling License
check
Instals
Date Recd_ _
;:Organ/zatlon /nformation,�.� ��� � Y':�� • , •����
Organizatlon ame previous lawful gambli xemptlon number
l t)r►� �
Oil LW �aGks �I�,L,kj1 I X 86vla-9"TOv�
Street City ate Zip Code County
i0 �5 P�t-k fir. �o «��Io M�1 553"
Name of Ch he Exearttve Officer of organization (C O) Daytime Phone number of CEO
First Name Last 91
Loye- rJ 1G7vv%-A,%W
Oil) q-1'7- 3'170
Name of Organization Treasurer
First
� �ern����
Daytime Phone Number of Treasurer
�i l�
�►� 331-�f 1 �I
'Type of Nonprofilrbiganiiation
Check the box below which best describes Check the box that Indicates the type of proof attached to this Application
vour organizalion by your organization
❑ IRS letter Indicating Income tax exempt status
❑ Fraternal certificate of good standing from the Minnesota Secretary
❑ Veterans of Stale'5 office
Religious %A charter Omwing you're an aHftiate of a parent
❑ nonprofit organization
Other nonprofit proof previously submitted and on the with the Gambling Control
Board
Gainbiing r hWis Inforriiatfon
Name of Establishment where gambling actIvV will be conduckqd
N?oN�, CeCLo oL�Se-
Street City State Zip Code County
�QL �h0/Y!/t5 p191GL' g. B -
(%i
Date(s) of activity (for ramex• indicate the date of the drawing)
/fi4y 6 1 J 9 94
Check the box or boxes which Indicate the type of gambling activity your organization will be conducting
❑ Bingo M Raffles ❑ Paddlewheels ❑ Pufl•tabs ❑ Tlpboafds
Be race the Local Unit of Govemmcrd and the CEO of your organization sign For Board Use Only
the reverse side of this appllrallon. Date 141nitiala/of SpccifJiu
1
;.Local UnitbfGovemmenfJurlsdiction ±�
Is this gambling premises located within city limits? 00 Yes Q No
If Yes, write the nails of the J
City Name 1 Cc /l
If No, write the name of the County and the Township:
County Name Township Name
Check the appropriate status of the Township: [Dorgan zed C3norganized Otnincorporated
l ocal Unit Of Governinbn`t Acknowledgment
1. The city must sign this application if the gambling 3. DO NOT submit this application to the Gambling Control
promises is within city limits. Board if it is denied by the local unit of government.
2. The county and township must sign this appliica- 4. NOTE: A Township may not deny an application.
tion if the gambling premises is nut within city limits.
Upon submission of this application to the Gambling Control Board, the exemption will be issued not
more than 30 days (80 days for cities of the tat class) from the date the local unit of government
signed the application, provided the application is complete and all necessary information has been
received, unless the local unit of government passes a resolution to specifically prohibit the activity. A
copy of that resolution must be received by the Gambling Control Board within 30 days of the date
filled In below. Cities of the first class have 80 days In which to disallow the activity.
City or County Acknowledgment of Receipt of Township Acknowledgment of Awareness of
Application Application
Si' /*"
person Sigwmrc of person aclmow�8+n8 application
Jate Received: v )-/.;/m' Date Signed:
Title/q1f p/em;ooiving application Title of person acknowledging application
l...i 1'y /K�r..vir/T✓t72 ,C/
`Oath of Chlef Executive; Ofllcer
I hav ad this application and all information Is true, accurate and complete.
ubmlt the Ilcation at leas! 43 days prior to your achoduled date of activity.
Be sure to attach the $25 application fee and a copy of your proof of nonprofit status.
Mail the complete application and attachments to:
Gambling Control Board
1711 W. County Rd B Sulto 300S
Roseville, MN 5511
This publication wig be made evaltable In alternative formal (i.e. targe print, braille) upon request.
Questions on this form should be directed to the Licensing Section of the Gambling Control Board at
(612)639.4000.
Hearing Impaired Individuals using a TDD may call the Minnesota Relay Service at 1.800.827-3529 In the
Greater Minnesota Area or 297•S353 In the Metro Area.
The Information
on ngct�w�nof)edeeyour
compincwh ASSta and ei g000minplafugambliaivAthlniorntation
that you supply on this forth wig become public Information when received by the GCB.
5f?6
Council Agenda - 3/11/96
the.E
(J.OJ
Kevin Schmitz of C & S of St. Cloud is requesting preliminary plat approval
of a revised design of the Briar Oakes Estate Second Addition. Briar Oakes
Estate Second Addition (the plat) is located north of the first addition of
Briar Oakes Estate and south of the City's Eastwood Knoll subdivision. East
of the plat is Meadow Oak 4th Addition. The revised plat made slight
modifications to the lots and affected roadways in the northwest corner of the
plat.
The changes to the original approved preliminary plat are relatively minor
and include introduction of a modified cul-de-sacAoop street featuring a
center island. The revised plat also includes a reduction of the street width
at Shady Circle. The preliminary plat contains 32 lots, all of which are over
the minimum 12,000 sq ft. You'll note that storm water easements on the
plat reduce the usable area of a number of the larger lots.
Approximately half of the plat is heavily wooded with mature oak trees. The
grading plan has been designed to minimize the impact of the road on the
forest area. In addition, there will be no mass site grading of the forested
area. Site grading will occur on an individual lot basis as each home is
developed. This will enable the greatest opportunity for preservation of
trees.
The plat will be connected to Eastwood Knoll to the north via Eastwood Lnne.
The City will be responsible for completing road improvements from the edge
of the plat to Eastwood Knoll. To the north of the plat is a power line
easement that stretches westerly in the direction of the middle school and
easterly to Meadow Oak Park. The power line is also the alignment for a
pathway connecting the neighborhood to these areas. It is expected that a
major segment of this pathway will be installed with this project, or the
grading will be installed, or the City will be obtaining funds from C & S of St.
Cloud which will be combined with other funds to build this pathway within
the next two years. Another smaller pathway segment links Shady Oak
Circle to the nearest cul -do -sac constructed with the first nddition. Finally,
there is also a pathway extending from the east side of the plat toward the
Meadow Oak development which links to the pathway extending northerly
along the rear lot lines of the Meadow Oak development toward the Meadow
Oak Park.
Council Agenda - 311 V96
In summary, once the pathways have been completed, Briar Oakes Estate
Second Addition will benefit from various pathways leading to and from
important destination points for this area serving to link the neighborhood to
nearby neighborhoods, parks, and schools.
The City Engineer is currently reviewing the design of the modified cul-de-
sae/loop street in the northwest corner of the plat. The design proposed by
the developer calls for a 24 -ft wide loop street extending into the comer of the
plat. This loop street design creates longer street frontage for the three lots it
serves. It also features a center island that will be landscaped by the
developer and maintained through a homeowner association. The final
design, including the required roadway width of the cul-de-sac/loop street, is
being reviewed by the City Engineer and Public Works Director.
Motion to approve the preliminary plat with modifications to the
preliminary plat as suggested by the City Engineer and Planning
Commission.
Motion is based on the finding that the plat is consistent with city
ordinances and similar to the previously -approved plat. This is the
alternative selected by the Planning Commission.
Motion to deny approval of the preliminary plat.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The revised preliminary plat that is presented is very similar to the
preliminary plat approved in 1991. The plat meets the minimum
requirements. Sanitary sewer, water, and storm sewer service is available,
etc.; therefore, staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat with
adjustments as required by the City Engineer.
Copy of the plat.
Council Agenda - 3/11/96
erati�
(J.0.)
Ruff Auto requests a conditional use permit which would allow construction
of a second story to the existing office building. Ruff Auto wishes to delay
completion of code requirements until after establishment of a planned unit
development. The PUD plan document would be completed in the next six
months with site improvements to follow as identified in the plan.
In the past, the City has not allowed business expansions to occur without
site improvements required by code. For instance, the following businesses
were required to install screening of outside storage in conjunction with a
building expansion: NSP regional facility, SMA Elevator, Simonson's
Lumber, and others. In this situation, Ruff Auto is requesting the
conditional use permit based on the promise to enter into negotations to
discuss terms of a PUD with the good faith intent of establishing a special
zoning district and site plan that is consistent with code requirements.
Please see the report from Steve Grittman outlining the issues associated
with this request.
Also, in the short-term, Ruff Auto has agreed to move the fence on 6th Street
into the Ruff Auto property, thus providing space for pine plantings, which
will screen the view of the cars from 6th & Elm Street. Under this plan, the
City will be moving the fence due to the fact that City employees directed
Ruff Auto placement of the fence on city right-of-way some years ago. The
City/local neighborhood will benefit from improved screening that is likely to
result from the PUD process; therefore, it appears reasonable for the City to
fund one-half of the cost of site plan work, which is estimated at $6,000 for
the total.
The site is not served with sewer service. As a pre -requisition to expansion,
sanitary sewer service lines should be extended to the site, or the Council
must make a finding that it is not feasible to serve the site with such service.
According to Public Works Director John Simola, it is feasible to extend
sewer service to the site.
N LT . NATIV . ACTION
1. Motion to approve the conditional use pormit request allowing
expansion of the office building subject to the following conditions.
Council Agenda - 3/11/96
Ruff Auto will enter into negotiations outlining terms and
conditions associated with a planned unit development.
Ruff Auto will fund half the cost of the PUD/neighborhood plan.
3. Ruff Auto will allow the cyclone fence on the 6th Street side of
the property to be relocated off the city ROW to a position
approximately 8-12 ft inside of the Ruff Auto property line.
At the Planning Commission meeting, Chuck Stumpf had no problems
S p &U0with conditions 1-3.
t � ' ��he Planning Commission selected this alternative based on the
� following findings:
1. The expansion of the office building will not result in an
increase or intensification of the non -conforming aspects of the
site. For example, no additional outside storage will result from
the expansion.
This situation is a unique, long-standing, pre-existing condition
to which the applicants have expressed an interest in
negotiating the solution. These conditions are not found in
other areas of Monticello, and thus the conditional use permit
approach is justified in this situation.
The site size, configuration, and elevation relative to the
surrounding properties makes complete conformance to city
code, or establishment of PUD, unfeasible within the requested
time frame for construction of the addition. Accepting an
agreement to plan for ultimate conformance while allowing
expansion in the short term accomplishes Ruff Auto's short-term
goals and has the potential of creating a long-term plan that
allows the neighborhood and Ruff Auto to co -exist.
Motion to deny the conditional use permit request allowing expansion
of the office building.
It could be argued that the expansion should not occur unit the PUD
agreement is in place. Approving the expansion before the agreement
is in place reduces the applicant's motivation to follow through and
complete the PUD process. It also could set a precedent in that it
allows expansion of a non -conforming use based on a promise that an
Council Agenda - 3/11/96
acceptable PUD plan will be developed. Normally, the details of the
plan are negotiated before the building permit for the expansion is
issued.
STAFF F..O NDATION:
Although staff is concerned about a possible precedent, we support
alternative #1 with the added condition that the applicant submit funds
today to cover one-half the cost of the site plan work associated with the PUD
phuming ($2,600). Making this deposit would further illustrate Ruff Auto's
intent and would help to blunt the precedent of allowing Ruff Auto to expand
without the actual PUD plan in place.
Staff and Planning Commission are upbeat about the long -tern prospects of
integrating the salvage yard with the existing neighbors to the north and
future neighbors to the south. Approval of the conditional use permit with
the conditions may be the first step down a new, more positive road for both
the City and Ruff Auto.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Planning Commission agenda of 3/5/96; Report from Planner Steve Grittman
of NAC; News release; MPCA letter.
Planning Commission Agenda - 3/5/96
Ali
As you recall, at the previous meeting of the Planning Commission, Brian
Stumpf and Ron Ruff described a proposal to add a second story to the
existing office building. The Planning Commission was hesitant to approve
the addition without certain site improvements being made such as screening
of outside storage. Planning Commission noted to the applicant that the City
has required many other applicants to make code -related improvements to
their site at such time that expansion occurs. Planning Commission did
indicate a strong interest in working with Ruff Auto toward legitimizing the
land use by creating a planned unit development zoning district and
establishing conditions for operation of the facility. Under the planned unit
development concept, Ruff Auto would be converted from a lawful
nonconforming use to a lawful use. Planning Commission tabled the decision
regarding the conditional use permit pending additional discussions between
City staff and Ruff Auto regarding the potential creation of a Ruff Auto PUD
zone.
Subsequent to the Planning Commission meeting, I met with Chuck Stumpf,
Brian Stumpf, and Ron Ruff. Chuck Stumpf is not convinced that creation of
a planned unit development at this point is in the best interest of Ruff Auto.
He requested that the conditional use permit request allowing expansion of
the office building be placed back on the agenda for a decision by the
Planning Commission. Stumpf indicated that he was not entirelyynnosed to
the planned unit development concept; however, he was not interested in
pursuing it at this time due to time constraints. He appeared to be interested
in moving forward with development of the second story of the structure as
proposed under the current request, which, if approved, would expedite the
project.
Please see the attached information from the previous agenda for alternative
actions with regard to this request. Please note that a decision to approve or
deny is necessary at this time due to state law limiting the time that is
allowed to cities for consideration of land use questions.
1a
NFNCNORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS
COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH'
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Monticello Mayor & City Council
Monticello Planning Commission
FROM: Elizabeth Stockman / Stephen Ghttman
DATE: 31 January 1996
RE: Monticello - Ruff Auto Parts, Inc. - Conditional Use Permit
FILE: 191.07 -96.02
Background
Ruff Auto Parts, Inc. Is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Perk to allow
expansion of an existing office facility located within the PZM, Mixed Performance Zone.
The Ruff Auto Parts operation (auto salvage yard and office) is a legally non -conforming
use within the PZM District which has been In existence in Its current location for many
years. The owners wish to add a second story onto the existing single level office building.
The following paragraphs provide an overview of Zoning Ordinance requirements, followed
by analysis of Issues and decision options. The applicant has not submitted adequate
plans which meet the submission regvirernents outlined in the Zoning Ordinance, thus the
conformance with or violation of adopted standards cannot be property evaluated at this
time.
Attached for reference:
Exhibit A - Site Location
Exhibit B - Site Sketch
Exhibit C - Front Elovatlon of Second Story Addition
Exhibit 0 - Rear Elevation of Second Story Addition
5775 WAYZATA aou LEVARD, SUITE SSS ST. LOUID PARK, MINNLeOTA 85410
PHONE 0 1 2.506.0000 PAX 01 2-595.OB37
1
Zoninq Ordinance Requirements
Zoning. The Ruff Auto Parts property is zoned PZM, Residential -Commercial Mixed Use.
The performance of the PZ Districts is to allow for development flexibility and special
design control within sensitive areas of the City We to environmental or physical
limitations. The PZM District is specifically aimed at creating a transition between
residential properties and low intensity business land uses, allowing for the mix of such
uses through innovative design and aesthetic controls. The Ruff Auto Parts operation is
a legally non -conforming use within the PZM District
Conditional Use PermIL The expansion of non-eortfonning uses Is prohibited within the
City. To facilitate the proposed addition onto an existing office building upon the Ruff Auto
Parts property, the applicants have requested approval of a Conditional Use Permit The
Conditional Use Permit process offers flexibility to the City Council to assign dimensions
or conditions to a project which Involves special circumstances.
Due to the mix of uses on this site, this option was offered to the applicant by City staff
because of special, unusual, or extraordinary limitations and special problems of control
the use represents. Under the straight Conditional Use approach, the City would consider
the office use as a separate land use from the storage use. Since office uses are allowed
in the PZM District by Conditional Use Permit, the office could be expanded without
affecting the non -conforming status of the storage. This approach requires the City to
interpret the non -conforming use language to refer to specific uses only and not to the
whole parcel.
Procedurally, the Planning Commission and City Council shall consider the possible
adverse effects of the proposed conditional use. Its judgement shall be based upon, but
not limited to, the following factors:
t. Relationship to municipai comprehensive plan.
2. The geographical area Involved.
3. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area In which it is
proposed.
4. The character of tho surrounding area.
5. The demonstrated need for such use.
O "U
Additionally, in granting a Conditional Use Permit for development within the PZM District,
the City Planning Commission and City Council must make the following findings of fact:
1. The proposed project is consistent with the spirit and intent of the Monticello
Comprehensive Plan goals and policies and in keeping with to intent of the Zoning
Ordinance.
2. The proposed project is consistent with the purpose of the performance zoning
ordinance.
3. The proposed project will not have any adverse impacts as outlined in the
Conditional Use Permit section of the Zoning Ordinance.
4. The proposed project shag meet minimum screening and landscaping requirements
as outlined herein.
5. The proposed project shall provide adequate parking and loading as outlined
herein.
6. The proposed project provides a wider range of housing hypes, price ranges, and
styles within the community.
7. The proposed project will provide amenities and facilities and open spaces greater
than the minimum requirements under alternative zoning.
6. The proposed project shall in no way be detrimental to trio environment Scenic
aspects and natural features shell be protected and preserved to the extent
possible.
8. The proposed project shall not Impose any undue burden upon public facilities and
services.
10. The proposed project is designed in such a manner to fort a desirable and unified
environment within its boundaries which will not be detrimental fu cue lend uses In
surrounding areae Architecture and site treatments ei!tall be compatible with
adjacent structures and site plans and Mall respect the privacy of nelghboring
homos and/or businesses.
Other findings of fact submitted by ft Planning Commission and City Council may be
required to addrim additional requirements necessary to make type project In compliance
with the Zoning Ordinance where the Planning Commlulon astd City Council feel the
proposed project is lacking.
ID
Lot Area, Width & Building Height Within the PZM District the minimum required lot
area is 12,000 square feet, the minimum required lot width is 80 feet, and the building
height limitation is two (2) stories.
Parking S Loading. Applications for a building permit In all zoning districts requires
submittal of a site plan drawn to scale and dimensioned indicating the location of off-street
parking and loading spaces. Without this data, conformance with these standards cannot
be verified, however, the parking and loading requirements have been outlined as follows.
All parking areas are required to be surfaced with materials adequate to
control dust and drainage. They must be striped with white painted lines no
less than 4 inclM wide and cubed around the perimeter with a six (6) inch
non -surmountable continuous concrete cub. All off-street parking areas of
five or more spaces must be screened and landscaped around the perimeter
and within median areas as required by ordinance. One curb cut Is
permitted per 125 feet of frontage and no such access may exceed 24 feet
in width without approval by the City Engineer. Curb cut openings and
driveways must be setback a minimum of five (5) feet from side yard property
lines, be a minimum of 40 feet apart and 40 feet from the intersection of two
or more streets. Parking and loading areas may not exceed a five (5)
percent grade nor may they be used for open storage of equipment or
materials. A fifteen (15) inch culvert is required under driveway access
openings unless the lot is served by public storm sewer.
The minimum number of parking spaces required Is twenty four (24) , calculated as follows;
Office Buildings Three (3) spaces plus one (1) space for each 200
square feet of floor area =12 spaces (based on a 30 x
60 building)
Warehouse, storage Eight (9) spaces plus one (1) space for each two (2)
or handling of bulk goods employees on each shift based an maximum planned
employment or at a minimum at least eight (e) spaces
plus one (1) for each five hundred (500) square feet of
floor area
0 12 spaces (basad on a 30 x 60 buildlM not
browing the number of rtntployoos)
According to the submkfed site ekotch, the property is short of parking spaces overall and
does not Indicate the proper dimensions of parking stalls.
16
Buildings of 5,000 square feet or more (up to 100,000 sf) require the provision of one (1)
loading berth measuring frfty-five (55) feet in length, ten (10) feet in width and fourteen (14)
feet in height. All loading berths are required to be screened and landscaped from
abutting and surrounding residential uses and surfaced with bituminous paving. They may
not be located within the front yard and must be at least 50 feet from a street intersection
or from residential areas.
The Ruff Auto Parts property is currently short of parking, loading and general storage
space. It is necessary at times to utilize the public right -0f -way as a holding area for
vehicles or equipment when other merchandise is being moved on or oft the site. This
raises concerns with public safety and liability and is an indication that the current site is
being over utilized. These items also place the site In the non -conforming category.
Screening 8 Landscaping. Screening is required to buffer all outdoor storage areas to
assure an aesthetic urban environment and shall consist of either a fence or vegetative
plantings. A required screening fence shall be constructed of masonry, bride, wood or
steel and must provide a solid screening effect not less than six (8) and not more than
eight (8) feet In height Buffer yards are required to reduce the negative impacts that result
when incompatible uses abut one another. A minimum buffer yard 40 feet in width with
building setbacks of at least 50 feet shall be required given the severe intensity of conflict
between the Ruff Auto Parts property and adjacent low density residential neighborhood.
The required number, sizes, and species of plantings must meet the minimum standards
established.
Detailed landscape plans are required In all cases where site pian approval is specified.
Where landscape ar manmade materials are used to provide screening from adjacent or
neighboring properties, a cross-section drawing must be provided showing the perspective
of the Rite from the neighboring property line at the property line elevation.
Building Matorlals. Every building within the City is required to be finished on all sides
with consistent architectural quality, materials, and design.
Signago. The type, size, location, height and number of signs which, exist upon the Ruff
Auto Parts property are not indicated on the application. Any signs which exist must be
brought into conformance with the City's sign regulatlom, If required by the City Council.
as provided in Soc::U n 3-9 of the Zoning Ordinance. Within PZM Districts, the maximum
allowable square footage of sign area per lot may not exceed the sum of ons (1) square
foot per front foot of the building plus one (1) square foot for each front foot of lot not
occupied by a building, up to 100 square feet Each lot is allowed one (1) pylon sign or
froostanding sign and ono (1) wall sign or two (2) wall signs total.
1F
Required Plans. The City Zoning Ordinance requires that any person desiring to improve
property shall submit a survey of the premises and information on the location and
dimensions of existing and proposed buildings, structures, easements, and other
information which may be necessary to insure conformance to City ordinances. The
submitted plans do not provide the necessary detailed information and do not show
property boundaries. Additionally, grading, drainage, and utility plans must be submitted
to the City Engineer for review and approval. The applicant has not submitted the required
site or grading plans which are needed to verify the site and building conformance with
established performance standards. Applicants are required to submit final building plans
to the City prior to the granting of permits. No changes to the plans shall be permitted
without consent from the City Council. All requirements as a condition of approval shall
be addressed in the final development agreement and indicated on all appropriate plans.
Issues Analysis
Prior to Ruff Auto Parts formal application for Conditional Use Permit approval, City staff
met with the applicant to discuss expansion options. Technical interpretation of the Zoning
Ordinance considers the existing office building and auto salvage operation one In the
same, the first being the central control and management point for the later which share
the same site and are physically integrated. Given the legal non -conforming status of the
business, the Zoning Ordinance would not allow expansion of any aspect of the auto
salvage operation If strictly applied. Section 3-1 states that 'non -conforming uses shall
not be enlarged or expanded, but may be continued at the size and manner of operation'.
The long term status of the Ruff Auto Parts business within Monticello has resulted in the
existing condition of the site and operation which is in violation of numerous Zoning
Ordinance regulations and performance standards - some obvious and others assumed
(due to lack of plans) - for instance setback, surfacing and screening requirements. Many
of these issues were discussed at the initial meeting with City staff whereupon the
Conditional Use Permit alternative was chosen by the applicant. This is only one of
multiple options available In deciding the future expansion possibilities of the Ruff Auto
Parts property. Individual alternatives are discussed as follows.
Alternative Approach - Planned Unit Developmerrt. The consideration of the project
under the Conditional Use Permit as proposed places the City In a difficult position. A
finding that the office and storage uses aro separate for the purposes of nonconforming
use troatmont would be a policy position which could have precedent for other properties
in the community. The alternative to this approach would be to rezone the property to a
Planned unit Dovelopment District designation. Under a PUD District tho uses could be
considered conforming, and the applicant could be allowed to eland without running afoul
of tho ncn-conforming use sections of the Zoning Ordinance.
1G
Moreover, the City and the property owner could agree to a staging of property
improvements which would both permit the expansion of activities on this site (or adjacent
available lands), and provide a Gear outline for bringing the business Into conformance
with performance standards including parking, loading, setbacks, and possibly most
significantly, screening of outdoor storage. The use of PUD in this situation would be as
an actual zoning district rather than by Conditional Use Permit overlying the base zoning
(as most often applied). In this way, the City can permit the use without risking the
opening of the property to other industrial or commercial uses.
Should the City opt to approve the project via the Conditional Use Permit or via another
means as outlined below, some or all of the performance standards may be enforced to
either reduce or eliminate the site's non-conformance with established site Improvements.
The submittal of required plans is necessary under all scenarios to document both the
existing site status and planned improvements as well as potential timing of various
phases. A development agreement should also be required to formalize the process.
Decision One - Conditional Use Permit for an expansion of the Office.
This option Involves a less restrictive interpretation of Zoning Ordinance requirements.
In this regard, the office portion of the Ruff Auto Parts operation ( the less offensive aspect
with regard to compatibility issues) was conceptually separated from the exterior salvage
activitles which, most would agree, tend to have a more negative impact on neighboring
properties. The separation of the office and salvage yard aspects of this operation may
allow for expansion opportunities within the PZM District via the Conditional Use Permit
process because the office has a low Intensity nature consistent with the intent of the PZM
District.
There are no fixed standards for Conditional Use Permits within the PZM District. In their
review, the City shall take into account standards that are contained in other sections of
this ordinance that ,test closely resemble those that would apply to a similar use if it were
proposed in a district other than the performance zone, and the neighboring land uses.
Altomative A - Conditional Use Permit Approval (without conditions).
The alternative would allow expansion of the existing oftloe building through the
Conditional Use Permit process without conditions being placed on the approval. It could
be construed that the office facility is the center of business oporotion on site and that
wiftU it the auto salvage operallon could not function. In this regard, the City may view
the approval as necessary to preserve a long-time community business. This alternative
would require a finding that the proposed office expansion Is separate from the storage/
salvage use, and Is not affected by the non -conforming use issues on the site.
14
Alternative B - Conditional Use Permit Approval (with conditions).
This alternative would allow expansion of the existing office building through the
Conditional Use Permit process bul would require other site Improvements to progressively
bring the business operation Into closer conformity with adopted Zoning Ordinance
requirements and performance standards. Both the applicant and the City may benefit
from an agreement to expand whereby the applicant gains more space as desired in
exchange for the provision of site improvements such as paving, screening and
landscaping. This is not only an equitable way to proceed but represents the intent of the
non -conforming use regulations which state that 'they riot be permitted to continue without
restriction and that they will eventually be brought Into conformity'.
This is one of the preferred options of City staff, as staff cannot recommend approval
without improvement of the site and reduWon/alimination of incompatible land use
relationships and negative outstanding Issues. In this regard, the primary focus is the
protection of public welfare and to uphold the integrity of the municipal land use plan. If
the City Council chooses this option, the setback, density, screening, and submission
requirements outlined under the PZM standards outlined in Section 10.8 should be
followed.
Alternativo C - Denial.
As discussed previously, technical interpretation of the City's Zoning Ordinance would
classify the office facility as a directly related aspect of the auto salvage operation which
Is the principal use of the property. In this regard, the entire office -outdoor storage
operation would be considered one in the same as a single nonconforming use. The
Zoning Ordinance does not allow expansion of non -conforming uses without bringing the
use into conformance with established design and performance standards.
Office facilities allowed by Conditional Use Permit under the PZM District are specifically
limited to professional and commercial offices which have no storage of merehartdisa and
are service oriented with no retail sale of goods on the premises. The separation of the
office use from the auto salvage use for purposes of ordinance interpretation and to allow
expanslon of the facility through other options discussed above, one could conclude that
a negative precedent is being set which may prompt other property owners to request
deviation from adopted ordinance standards.
.1s
Deelslon Two . Rezoning to Planned Unit Development
This option proposes the rezoning of the Ruff Auto Parts property to Planned Unit
Developmerd to not only allow the desired office buildUg apansion, but eliminate the non-
conforming At-- of the business operadlon and aooept the current property configuration
as it erdsts. Under the Planned Unit Development designation, flexibility in setbacks and
other performance standards would be at the discretion of the City Council. This would
allow the City to be as restrictive or as liberal as desired in specifying performance
standards to be met
pc: Jeff aNeill
01 r
v
m
EO
fq
r
%, ---
". 'k"4 .. !7 1 .,*,; i
C*
— — `C�l.11I Btu. mar,
'flits LAC. _
N
• N
�1
a
J
Q
News Release _
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency PdM.da~pww„enat
520 Lafayette Road North, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155.4194 Is" 10% More tmm papw
#,% ncyebd by eonsutn•t•.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE March 17, 1945 Contact: Scat llvidsten, (612) 297-1607
(612) 282.5332 (17M
Toll free 1-800.657-3864 (voiWI TY)
_► till 1;1911u_• _ •:
The Minnesota Polludon Control Agcncy (hIFCA) today recognized 10 vehicle salvage yawls
from across die state for their efforts towud protecting die environment from automobile wastes.
MPGA Commissioner Chuck Williams said otter salvage yawls in die state should look to diene
10 salvage yards for examples of practices die Industry should suive for when they menage,
recycle or dispose of auto wastes, such as used oil, batteries, waste tires and antifreeze.
" hese'10 salvage yards have put in a strong effort to protect die environment from vehicle
wastes and have also protected their businesses front future cleanup liabilities." Cohnnhissioner
Williams said. "They've hncorporated envirunmental protection hnto their everyday business
practices. These environmental practices are the ones we'll be looking for at all salvage yards in
die future."
The 10 veldcle salvage yards receiving specialrecogtudon art:
• AAA Auto Salvage, Inc. — Rosemount
• Balaton Auto Salvage — Balaton
• Clhaddmk Light Truck & Auto Salvage — Rochester
• Hwy 75 Used Auto Pans — Georgetown
• John's Auto Pans — Minneapolis
• Metro Auto Salvage — Lakeville
• Ruff Auto Parts — Monticello
• Sheldon's Used Auto Pans —Thief River Falls
• Twin fray Auto & Military — St. Paul
• Viking Auto Salvage — Northfield
(mum)
1
Top Salvage Yards
Page 2
March 17, 1995
The MPGA recently evaluated 476 salvage yards statewide as part of a larger assessment and
outreach effort. The Agency recognized these 10 businesses as being especially panschm of
environmental Issues and raking steps to protect die environment.
At eight workshops held between mid-December and late February throughout the state, the
MPGA presented Best Management Practices (DhIPs) to the vehicle salvage Industry. The BMPs
provide guidance on how to protect the environment and businesses from vehicle waste pollution,
and were developed with support from the Automotive Recyelers of Mlnnesoua, an industry trade
association. The 10 salvage yards, according to die Agency, already follow many of the
recommended practices and have developed innovative solutions for preventing pollution.
A report on vehicle salvage facilities published by the MPCA fit January found that these
BMPs are the single most linportant activity businesses can adopt to protect die environment and
diennselves from euto waste pollution.
Copies of the MPCA's Ahoror Vehicle Salvage Yard Envirawienral Packes, containing the
DNLPs as well as a training videotape and posters, arc available from die Nnnesaa Bookstore in
St. Paul. Contact die buokstote at (612) 297.3000, or tull-free at 1.800.657.3757. TTY users
call 1-800-657-3706.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
r�
May 1, 1995
Mr. Chuck Stumpf
Ruff Auto Parts
800 Elm Street
Monticello, Minnesota aj
Dear Mrf (�`�'
1 am w ' ' g to congratulate you on the recent recognition that you received from the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) for your efforts to protect the environment at your vehicle salvage
yard.
Managing vehicle wastes properly and incorporating Best Management Practices into your business
operations not only protects our air, eater and soil, but also protects your business from costly future
cleanup liabilities.
�.. Many of the vehicle salvage operations in the state already have begun to incorporate waste
management practices that protect the envirorurtent. But the MPCA wanted to recognize your
operation as one of a small group of businesses we observed that were in compliance with nearly all of
the Best Management Practices our agency has been using in workshops for the vehicle salvage
industry several months.
1 'ons on all your efforts to protect Mintusotn's environment for all of us. Keep up
I (rir
r
1
5" Lafayane Rd. N.: St. Pad, MN 55155-4194;(612) 299•63W (vote); (812) 292.5= (TTY)
R@gWW Offices: Uuth • Onlrgro • WWI LW= • Marshall • Rodratar
Eawt Orro-amW Emtarra • ptau.e on nertlw pro« CW90 o at wit ton taus hm paw tac7cba by catuewa.
Council Agenda - 3/11/96
A report will be provided at the meeting.
250 East Broadway
P. 0. Box 1147
Monticello, MN
55362.9245
Phone: (612) 295.2711
Metro: (612) 333.5739
Fax: (612) 295.4404
Mr. Richard Carlson
Dear Mr. Carlson:
March 8, 1996
On Thursday, March 7, 10%, you indicated that you are considering making a new offer to
the City. You indicated that the offer will come through your attorney. This is to reiterate
that on February 26, 1996, the City Council responded favorably to your original offer
made through your real estate agent to sell your property to the City at its appraised value
of $163,000 minus the cost of fixing the fire damage. On the 26th, Council heard that the
insurance company preliminary estimates placed the cost to repair the home at $20,000.
Council wished to verify this amount prior to entering into an agreement with you, and
thus directed City staff to work with the insurance company to determine a fair reduction
in the purchase price due to the fire. We are now putting together our numbers and lank
forward to sharing our notes with the insurance company. 1 had setup a meeting will►
your insurance adjuster for March 7, at 4 p.m., to discuss repair estimates, but he did ►lot
show. This meeting was necessary in order for the City Council to consider approval of the
final figures at the regular meeting on Monday, March 11.
Please consider the following as you analyze your alternatives. I have obtained comments
from the City Planner regarding zoning issues pertaining to your property, which are
attached for your review. In summary, there aro sound policy reasons why the City might
oppose the granting of variances for garage construction on this site. The City has not
granted any similar request adjacent to the river and would probably scrutinize this one
carefully for its adherence to all of the ordinance requirements and policies duo to the
extent of the variances necessary to build the garage. In other words, if you apply for u
permit to construct a garage, it is reasonable to expect that the permit would not be
granted in consideration of the shoreland issues and the variance requirements. Also, any
0U
Office of PuW Works. 90 GO Course Rd., Nox1keUa. UN 88402 r PAau: f612/ 288• S 17U • Fox: 1612129.5•.9170, elf. I
Mr. Richard Carlson
March 8, 1996
Page 2
dispute that you might have regarding the reasonableness of the regulations should be
moot because the City is willing to buy the property at its appraised value minus the cost
to repair fire damage.
If you wish to discuss this matter further, please feel free to call.
Yours truly,
CITY OF MONTICELLO
Jeff O'Neill
Assistant Administrator
JO/kd
Enclosure
cc: Mayor and City Council
Steve Crittman, City Planner
Richard Carlson, Century 21 - White Dove Realty
File
9�
KC
W-1996 12:18 Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
COMMUNITY PLANNING • DESIGN • MARKET RESEAhCH
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Jeff O'Neill
FROM:
Stephen Grittman
DATE:
March 7, 1 SW
RE:
Monticello - Front Street Property
FILE NO:
191.06
Per our discussion, 1 have prepared the following comments on the zoning issues
surrounding the Front Street property.
It would appear that the construction of any garage would require at least a variance to the
front yard setback and a variance to the Wild and Scenic River/8horeland setback
regulations. Variances to the standards of the Zoning Ordinance are to be considered by
the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals under specific
conditions. The conditions must create a hardship which is non -economic in nature. Such
hardships must:
• Result from a cundition of the property, including shallowness or narrowness;
• Lead to exoWtional difficulties in the use of the parcel in a manner *customary and
legally permissible' in the district;
• Create an 'undue hardship' on the owner that another parcel within the district
would not sufor if developed In the same manner.
Presumably, the Front Street property request etema from its condition of shallowness.
Moreover, the constnxdlon of a garage could be considered a customary and legally
permissible accessory use to a single family home Howww, the third facto assumes that
the City would great, or has granted, similar adjustments for Similar purposes.
5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Soho 555 • St. Louis Park. MN 55416 • (612) 595.9636•Fax. 595.9837
rc./
The City has granted small variances to side yard setbacks in order to permit the
construction of two stall garages accessory to single family homes in the past These
variances have been granted upon findings that such garages are appropriate accessory
uses of singly family property. However, there are a number of factors which distinguish
this situation from those. First, the amount of the variance granted has always been
significantly less than that proposed in this case, whether measured In actual number of
feet, or In percentage of the setback encroached upon. Second, few if any of these
previous variances were granted in the Wild and Scenic/Shoreland areas. Third, none of
them actually encroached on the shoreline itself. The purpose and policies relating to
development along the Mississippi River suggest concern over both aesthetic and
environmental Issues which would be compromised by construction within the required
setback areas.
In summary, there are sound policy reasons why the City might oppose the grant of
variances for garage construction on this site. The City has not granted any similar
request adjacent to the River, and would probably scrutinize this ane carefully for its
adherence to all of the Ordinance requUements and policies, particularly due to the extent
of variance necessary to accomplish the owners purpose.
Cies Interest in Prooeriv Whether the City might consider a variance to permit garage
construction on thin site would be an Issue separate from the City's Interest in the property
for other purposes. It is certainly no secret that the City would like to purchase tho
property, as evidenced by its offer for full appraised value In consideration of the insurance
adjustment
Even if the property owner attempted to tlo the City's stance on the variance issue to the
City's Interest, the owners remedy is often the very one which the City is proposing: the
City should purchase the property In question.
In summary, if the owner were to withdraw the property from the market and apply for a
permit to construct a garage, it Is reasonable to assume that the permit would not be
granted in consideration of the Shoreland Lamm and the variance requirements.
Moreover, the ownor's dispute with the reasonableness of the regulation (the setbacks)
should be a moot issue since the City is willing to buy the property.
Lot me know if you would like to discuss this issue further.
TOTkiL P.e2
Council Agenda - 3/11/96
M dog-
(R.W.)
The public works employee union contract covering eight public works
employees is about to expire on April 1, 1996, and I will soon begin
negotiation sessions with the union representatives concerning a new two-
year contract. In the past, I have normally conducted the negotiations with
the union steward and union representative and brought back to the Council
a contract extension recommendation. The last time the contract was
negotiated in April 1994, the Council appointed Clint Herbst to be the
Council representative to be part of the negotiating team.
I recently received a summary of the proposals the union members are asking
to be included in the new contract covering work schedule times, vacation
and sick pay accumulation, and, naturally, salary schedule increases. I will
soon be preparing the City's response to the proposal and a negotiating
session will soon follow. If the City Council would like to again have a
representative be involved with the negotiations prior to a contract being
proposed to the full City Council, you should appoint a representative at this
meeting.
R ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Council could select a representative(s) to the union contract
negotiation committee.
Do not appoint a representative from the Council and authorize the
City Administrator to proceed with negotiations.
Sinop this union contract has been in existence for a number of years, most of
the major issues in contract language have already been negotiated in the
past, and the major issue now usually relates to salary increases. With the
comparable worth law in effect, the City must stand very firm on keeping the
public works union contracts in line with all other employees, or we will be in
violation of comparable worth. As a result, there really isn't much
bargaining room available, as we should strive to keep the union increase the
same as we adopted for other employees. From my standpoint, I do not have
a problem with a Council representative or two being involved in the
Council Agenda - 3111/96
negotiating sessions, nor do I have a problem with the Council simply
authorizing staff to conduct negotiations and present a contract proposal for
Council ratification.
None.
COUNCII. UPDATE
March 7, 1886
. (R.W.)
Previously it was brought to the Council's attention that the local police number to
reach the Wright County Sheriffs Department (296-2533) was being disconnected
by the Sheriff Department since we were now on the metro phone system. The
replacement number (682-1162) was supposed to be the number for local residents
to use when calling the police department.
The Council had suggested that the staff investigate the feasibility of a way to
notify Monticello residents that this phone number had been discontinued and that
citizens should cross out this number in their new phone book. Gary Anderson has
had conversations with Mr. Tom 011ig, Manager of Bridge Water Telephone
Company, regarding possible methods of notifying Monticello residents. At this
point in time, the only suggestion the telephone company seems to be willing to do
is to provide the City with 5,200 mailing labels and then have the City mail out a
letter of explanation to all the individuals with a 295 or 878 telephone number. Of
course, my first thoughts are that this would be ridiculous and that it would cost
the City $1,700 in postage alone, not counting the staff time to prepare and stuff
5,200 envelopes. If this was the only solution, it would be far cheaper for the City
or the Sheriffs Department to simply continue the phone number until the new
phone book came out since it only costs $60 a month for the phone line.
I am still attempting to discuss the issue further with Mr. 011ig to see if Bridge
Water Telephone Company would simply allow a small insert to be included in a
future monthly billing that indicated the number had been changed and should no
longer be used. This would seem to be a far simpler process and cheaper in that the
telephone company sends out monthly bills anyway; and to insert a brief
explanation shouldn't be that difficult. I will keep the Council informed of my
progress. If the telephone company isn't willing to insert a notice in a future bill, I
would suggest we simply put a notice in our next newsletter of the phone number
change and wait for the new telephone book to arrive next year.
COUNCIL UPDATES
March 4,19N
Revised local Board of Review date. (R.W.)
As you may recall, the County Assessor had originally scheduled the Board of
Review for Wednesday, Mav 8,�J at 7 p.m. Due to a conflict in Clint's schedule,
it was suggested that the Board of Review be delayed for one week until
Wednesday, May 15.
I contacted Doug Gruber, the County Assessor, to see if this would work in his
schedule, and Mr. Gruber was reluctant to reschedule any Board of Review past the
week of May 8, as this is the final week they had scheduled any reviews throughout
the county. We had discussed having the Board of Review earlier than the week of
May 8, but this would also be a conflict for Mr. Herbst. As a result, we decided to
leave the date as originally planned; therefore, the meeting wiU remain at
Wednesday, May 8, at 7 p.m.