The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Agenda Packet 08-12-1996AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday, August 12, 1998 - 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 regular meeting held July 22, 1998. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. A. Consideration of an offer to purchase Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Oakwood Industrial Park 2nd Addition - Lake Tool. 4. Citizens coanments/petitions, requests, and complaints. b. Consent agenda. A.' Consideration of allowing a simple subdivision. Applicant, Phyllis Link. C, Consideration of allowing a simple subdivision. Applicant, Ron Ruff. C. Consideration of reviewing Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund (GMEF) Loan No. 013 (Standard Iron) for compliance with the GMEF guidelines. D. Consideration of appointing election judges for the 1898 primary and general elections. (9 Consideration of issuance of an open burning permit to fire department to conduct a house burn for training purposes. 6. CunsideraLion of iWms removed Gum the cmu;ent agenda fur discussion. 7. Public Hearing --Consideration of granting a Special Home Occupation Permit to allow a furniture repair and refinishing business in a single family residence. Location: Lot 2, Block 7, Lower Monticello. Applicant, Ronald and Mary Hall. 8. Public Hearing --Consideration of an amendment to the zoning ordinance establishing a now zoning district known as "B -3A", Neighborhood Automotive Related Use District. Applicant, Monticello Planning Commission. Agenda Monticello City Council August 12, 1996 Page 2 9. Public Hearing --Consideration of amendments to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance regulating the number, size, and use of accessory buildings in residential zoning districts. Applicant, Planning Commission. 10. Consideration of approving expansion of liquor license at JPs Annex to include an outdoor seating area. 11. Review of six month liquor store financial report. 12. Consideration of renewing membership in Wright County Economic Development Partnership. 13. Consideration of approval of color logo and lettering plan for the old water tower. 14. Consideration of change in boulevard mowing practices. 16. Consideration to approve modifying the guidelines of the Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund IGMEFI. 16. Consideration of setting a date for a workshop to review the 1997 preliminary budget. 17. Adjournment. MINUTES REGULAR MEETING • MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday, July 22, 1996. 7 p.m. Members Present: Brad Fyle, Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst, Brian Stumpf, Tom Perrault Members Absent: None A MOTION WAS MADE BY CLINT HERBST AND SECONDED BY TOM PERRAULT TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD JULY 8, 1996, AS WRITTEN. Voting in favor: Clint Herbst, Tom Perrault, Shirley Anderson, Brad Fyle. Abstaining: Brian Stumpf. Motion passed. None. ,,, None. ., C.• - I' Mayor Brad Fyle requested that item 5D be removed from the consent agenda for discussion. Councilmember Perrault noted that the resolution for item 5A was adopted on June 24, 1996; therefore, item 5A was deleted from the agenda. A. Conaiderntion of ntinpting a resolution authnrizng prspavment of debt. 1996A G.O. Bond, This item was deleted from the agenda, as the resolution was adopted at the June 24, 1996, meeting. B. Consideration of aMmvingias mance of a trnyplina chow licenge for Kelly Miller Brothpm Cire +a . Qnmhor ofrnmmerce. Recommendation: Approve the issuance of a traveling show license W the Monticello Chamber of Commerce for the Kelly Miller Brothers Circus to be held on August 22, 1996, contingent on proof of liability insurance; Waive the Surety bond and license fee requirement; Bill posting on city light posts is prohibited. Page 1 Council Minutes - 7/22/96 C. Consideration of authorizing a voluntary VAyment to Lea ,e of Minnesota Citips for ffinding a work pan to address city "right-of-way" issues. Recommendation: Approve the voluntary contribution of $444 to the League of Minnesota Cities work plan regarding right-of- way issues. D. Co sideration of Calling for a Rneei 1 Cmincil meeting to eloseugg thp recently -adopted storm sewer pWicy This item was removed from the consent agenda for discussion. E. Consideration of.change order #1- River Street Sanitary Sewer_ BMject 96-0X. Recommendation: Approve change order #1 on City Project 96-06C, River Street Trunk Sanitary Sewer, with Richard Knutson, Inc., in the amount of $6,663.76. F. Consideration of final navment on rarefinal Hilig bth Addition- Proied 95-nW, - Kadlec Excavating, Recommendation: Authorize final payment to Kadlec Excavating of Mora, Inc., for Cardinal Hills 6th Addition, Project 96-06C, in the amount of $31,768.98. G. Co aidem ion of approving Rpc ifl inng for lie rtland B ,s contract bid renewal. Recommendation: Approve the specifications and authorize advertisement for bids for Heartland Express service contract. H. Consideration of rhanop order #1 to commuter parkingInt proi bMiect 96-08C. for fire half r 'nglot exp nn=ion. Recommendadon: Authorize City staff to negotiate a change order with Buffalo Bituminous for adding onto the fire hall parking lot at an estimated cost of around $2,600. Allow the public works department the flexibility to do the curb removal and common excavation if time permits. 1. Vnngidprnfinnofappo'nti P r a .o miaalo er. Recommendadon: Approve the appointment of Robbie Smith to the Parka Commission. A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN SCUMPF AND SECONDED BY SHUU EY ANDERSON TO ADOPT ITEMS 6B, 6C, 6E, 6F, 6ti, 6H, AND 51 AS RECOMMENDED. Motion carried unanimously. Page 2 Council Minutes - 7/22/96 W11 1, , , h..• w . : % : , Mayor Fyle requested that the Council schedule a special meeting to discuss the recently -adopted storm sewer policy prior to a regular meeting rather than on a separate night. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY CLINT HERBST AND SECONDED BY BRIAN STUMPF TO SCHEDULE A SPECIAL MEETING FOR AUGUST 26, 1996, AT 6 P.M., TO DISCUSS THE STORM SEWER FEE POLICY. Motion carried unanimously. Puhl iia --Adoption of aRsessmec Mayor Fyle opened the public hearing. City Administrator Rick Wolfsteller reported that the proposed assessment roll listed those accounts which were delinquent more than 60 days and also included an administrative fee of $25 per account. It was recommended that the assessment roll be adopted for certification in 1997 at an interest rate of 8%. John and Donna Born stated that they recently repossessed the property known as B•Clean Laundry located at 355 East Broadway and asked why the delinquent account was allowed to accumulate so high. The total deliquent amount owed since the last certification was approximately $1,800. In addition, the building was damaged estimated at $30,000 - $40,000. The Borns asked what options were available for paying the bill and asked that Council consider reducing the amount of interest charged. Administrator Wolfsteller explained that the delinquent list is adopted as an assessment roll on a quarterly basis, and all owners are notified. If an owner makes arrangements to pay the amount over time and payments remain current, the City would keep the account off the delinquent list; however, if payments aro not made as agreed, the account would be added to the delinquent list and certified to the taxes. Wolfsteller noted that typically the penalties and interest aro not waived on delinquent accounts. There being no other comments from the public, the public hearing was closed. Page 3 Council Minutes - 7/22/96 AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY CLINT HERB.ST AND SECONDED BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON TO ADOPT THE ASSESSMENT ROLL EXCLUDING THE B -CLEAN LAUNDRY ACCOUNT AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO NEGOTIATE A PAYMENT PROGRAM WITH THE NEW OWNERS, JOHN AND DONNA BORN. Motion carried unanimously. SEE RESOLUTION 96-36. City Administrator Wolfsteller reported that the City entered into a purchase agreement with Ken and Carol Bohanon on March 7, 1996, to acquire their 158 -acre farm on West County Road 39. As part of the purchase agreement, the City provided a $75,000 down payment at closing and agreed to pay the $450,000 balance without interest by a contract for deed that would be paid primarily in two installments of $225,000 each when the City received a valid permit from the PCA for sludge application on the land and when the City received loan proceeds from the Public Facilities Authority. In any event, each of the installments would have to be paid by December 31, 1996. During negotiations with the Bohanons, the City was under the impression that the application for the biosolids permit would take approximately 90 days or more, and the City anticipated receiving a permit by June 1996. Wolfsteller noted that he was recently informed by the PCA that a draft permit should be available within the next few days, but the actual permit cannot be issued until after a 30 -day comment period. Bohanons have indicated that they expected half of the money to be paid by June; and since they felt the delay in the City receiving the sludge permit was beyond their control, they requested that Council consider amending the purchase agreement by making a $100,000 payment at this time, with the balance of the first half payment due when the permit is issued by the State. Wolfsteller explained that if the City paid $100,000 to the Bohanons at this time and the permit was issued by the PCA within the next 30 days, the City would lose interest earnings of approximately $400. Council noted that the City's commitment to purchasing the property was strong and that the Bohanons had been very cooperative; however, it was the view of Council that the City was paying a premium price for the property and did not want to also lose interest earnings by amending the purchase agreement. Page 4 Council Minutes - 7/22/96 AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON AND SECONDED BY CLINT HERBST TO RELEASE $100,000 OF THE EXPECTED $225,000 PAYMENT THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN DUE IN APPROXIMATELY 30 DAYS MINUS THE INTEREST ESTIMATED AT $400 THAT THE CITY WOULD LOSE DURING THAT TIME. Motion carried unanimously. The City Administrator noted that this item could be deleted from the agenda, as the property owners withdrew their appeal regarding grass and weed removal. 1 0 ff R.T. M T". , , , 17, , r M. V r. M. n I -T r -T 1—.1 -, R. ,•a,✓ Public Works Director John Simola reported that the City's Construction Inspector makes a yearly visual inspection of all the concrete sidewalks in Monticello located on public property. For sidewalks located on the city grid system, the City will replace up to two panels annually without charge to the property owner. If the repair work involves three or more panels, the property owner is notified and a public hearing is held to order the repair or replacement, and the property owner is involved in the cost of repairs. Simola noted that during this year's inspection, it was noted that 19 panels need replacement. All areas needing replacement abutting private property involve two panels or less with the exception of Maple Street on the west side near St. Henry's Church, which may need three panels. Simola suggested that the City pay for the replacement cost in this area since necessary replacement was considered borderline. Simola also noted that property owners will bre notified if low tree branches are hazardous and need to be trimmed. The public works department will offer to provide the tree trimming service. Councilmember Anderson asked whether the Construction Inspector makes a note of hazardous sidewalk panels where water freezes during freeze/thaw times of the year. Simola stated that it is difficult to avoid this situation if there is snow on the boulevard; however, he will instruct the Construction Inspector to make a note of those situations. Cuuncilmumbu Perrault requested that the boulevard near Pump'n Munch be reviewed, as it is bituminous rather than grass. In addition, Perrault requested that Pine Street near the freeway bridge as noted under item 081 of the Sidewalk Inspection Report be reviewed a second time. Page 5 Council Minutes - 7/22196 AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON AND SECONDED BY BRIAN STUMPF TO AUTHORIZE CITY STAFF TO REPLACE 19 PANELS OF SIDEWALK ON THE GRID SYSTEM, IN ADDITION TO A FEW SETTLED SECTIONS OF CURB AROUND THE COMMUNITY. MOTION INCLUDES THE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE CONSTRUCTION INSPECTOR INSPECT SIDEWALKS ON THE GRID SYSTEM DURING THE FREEZE/THAW SEASON. Motion carried unanimously. Staff requested that Council table this item pending receipt of information from D & K Refuse and Recycling, the City's current recycling hauler. 12. Co�deration of billa for the month of Julg. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY TOM PERRAULT AND SECONDED BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON TO APPROVE THE BILLS FOR THE MONTH OF JULY AS PRESENTED. Motion carried unanimously. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Karen Doty Office Manager Page 6 Council Agenda - 8/12/96 8A. Consideration of an offer to purchase Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Oakwood Industrial Park 2nd Addition. Applicant, Lake Tool. (R.W.) A REFERENCE AND RACK(;Rni1N11; Lake Tool, a small tool and die company currently located in a rental facility between Simonson Lumber and H -Window, is interested in purchasing Lots 1 and 2 of Oakwood Industrial Park 2nd Addition. These are two of the three lots the City still owns that were previously being held for possible purchase by the H -Window Company. As you may recall, H -Window decided not to continue with its option agreement, and as a result, the lots are again available for sale. Mr. Eric Bondhus, a partner in Lake Tool along with two of his brothers, has made an offer of $21,000 per acre for the two lots which consist of 2.6 acres total. This would amount to a total purchase price of $54,600 if the offer was accepted. Because these two lots were fiat and had access to both Dundas Road and Dundas Circle and could be developed without any major site work, we were asking the highest per acre price of any of the lots in this development. For 1995, the asking price amounted to approximately $21,975 per acre. This compares to $18,660 per acre that we received from our latest sale to the Willi Hahn Corporation which occurred this spring for the two lots directly across the road from these parcels. The per acre price was a little less for the Willi Hahn property due to some additional excavation and filling that would be necessary to utilize all of the property because of its abutting the drainage swale. For 1996, the asking prices were technically increased four and one half percent (4.6%) which would make the asking price $22,965 per acre. At this time, the offer proposed is for $21,000 per acre for a total price of $54,600. Lake Tool is proposing to construct a masonry or block building of approximately 8,000 sq. ft. for their first phase. While the building is not extremely large, they hope to expand as they grow and would like to acquire both lots to enable them to expand in the future. From a construction standpoint, I believe the City would prefer to see masonry or block construction as proposed and if the Council accepts an offer at less than its asking price, you may want to make the acceptance contingent upon the development of a masonry or concrete structure rather than a metal building. At this time, the only contingency 1 believe the purchasers are asking for would be some assurance that they would be allowed to have driveway acccao from both Dundas Circle and off of Dundas Road. I believe as long as sufficient setbacks from the intersection are obtained, a property owner is allowed access from two streots. Additional information that the Council should be aware of is I believe Lake Tool is interested in requesting tax increment financing assistance from the HRA for their project. Preliminary Council Agenda - 8/12/96 estimates indicate that between $20,000 and $30,000 in assistance could be made available from tax increment assistance but that the City would also be subject to approximately $800 per year in LGA penalty unless a 10% local contribution was included. As a comparison, although the City sold acreage across the street from this property to Willi Hahn for $18,560 per acre, they did not request any tax increment assistance. With Lake Tool possibly utilizing TIF assistance, the Council will have to decide whether a reduction in the per acre price would be acceptable. It should be noted that when Lake Tool had inquired about the availability of these lots, I did make one last attempt to see if H -Window had a change of heart and wanted to still purchase these Iota. I have not receive any response from my letter so 1 assume H -Window is not interested in acquiring any of these lots is the near future. Council could accept the purchase offer of $54,600 for the two lots which equals $21,000 per acre contingent upon any construction on this property being of a masonry or concrete construction. Council could accept the offer with no conditions to type of construction required. Council could reject the offer or make a counter offer. In the past, the Council has considered a reduction in the per acre asking f B price of the lots in this development when no tax increment assistance was proposed, While it appears that Lake Tool will be requesting HRA assistance, the Council needs to determine whether this is stiU.a-reasonable offer compared to other sales that have occurred or whethbr we should be firm in our nsking price of npproximntely $22,965if assistance is requested. The staff feels a concrete or masonry structure is the type of design that we would like to attract to the Industrial Park but since the size of the building is fairly small to start with, this may not be enough of a reason to reduce the price we aro asking. If this sale does occur, the City would have one lot remaining that is the least desirable lot in this development due to the gas line intersecting the property. Ultimately. I'm sura wo will be ablo to sell this lot although we may have to discount it slightly. Map depicting location of the two lots. kt \nr\ r5\ -- -EAST i 822. 76 - - 310 Al w --sr CA. . . , -i r --------;�9;e /l c wrs r � AND Loc g S ilb t, 04 -25 8 \ .35354 --Ew-s r 69000-- DLIAILA Council Agenda - 8/12/96 8li. Consideration of allowing a simple subdivision- Ap lironti Phyte LipL AND 6& Conalderatinn of allowing a simple mi i sio - Allpi Ant, IZn R� (J.O.) Please see the attached planning report from Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. A. RRFFRFN(F AND BA .K =RO lTTD: The proposed lot subdivisions would result in establishment of four buildable lots consistent in size and configuration with City ordinance requirements. There does not appear to be any reason to deny the request, therefore, the Planning Commission recommended approval. B_ ALTERNATIVE ACTION : 1. Motion to approve Ron Ruffs and Phyllis Linke subdivision requests. 2. Motion to deny approval of Ron Ruffs and Phyllis Link's subdivision requests. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff and Planning Commission recommend Alternative q1. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Planner's Report; Survey Information. Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. COMUUMITY PLANNING - DESIGN - M ARK E T R ESE ARCH MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Monticello Planning Commission Jeff O'Neill Stephen 6rittman August 1, 1996 Monticello - Ron Ruff/Phyllis Link Subdivision 191.07 - 916.09 CAnakilieradon of Subdivision Approval for Ron Ruff and Phylgs Unk creating two buildable lots of 12,000 square feet or more for each party. Ron Ruff and Phyllis Link have each requested simple subdivision approval to allow the subdivision of their respective properties Into two buildable lots each. The Link property would initially be divided Into three parcels, one of 13,321 square feet (Parcel A), one of 13,201 square feet (Parcel 6), and one of 2,588 aquare feat (Parcel Q. Parcel C would then be conveyed to Mr. Ruff who would then combine it wb his property, and splk his row property into 12,000 squarefood Iota (Parcels D and E). Peoel D con1laina the existing have atnd garage. At its May 13th meeting, the City Ccuncil rejected Mr. Ruffs request to reduce L10 R-2 minimum lot dze so he Could split his current land, The only substantive Issue In this request would be the need for any easements (or the vacation of any exWft easements) to fadutMe the new rot line locations. The City Engineer should comment on this Wwo. Each of the new We will meet the Ordinance standards for lot size and width. 5775 Wayzata Blvd. - Swte 555 - St. Louis Park, MN 55416 - (612) 595 -9636 -Fax. 595.9837 FIAT-f01-1`J'�b Approve the Subdivision request for Ran Ruff and Phyllis Link resulting in two new lots apiece, as submitted. This alternative should be backed by a finding that the proposal meets all requirements for single family lots under the zoning ordinance. 2. Deny the Subdivision request for Ron Ruff and Phyllis Link as submitted. This alternative should Include findings which indicate the City's reasoning in denying the request. A suggested finding might be that the proposed Parcel D includes an existing home which sits across the lot line, and that any subdriislon should be designed to correct this non -amity. Staff recommends approval of the subdivision, conditioned on review of the City Engineer for Lift and drainage easement Issues. Each of the resultara lots will meet all m Wmum starulards for single family development. The nonmonformity of the house silting across the lot line is an existing condition which cannot be solved without the involvement of another party. Subject to the County Recordefs acceptance of the legal descriptions without a formal plat, the subdivision can be approved as submitted. Survey of Link Prop" Survey of Ruff Property s� Council Agenda - 8/12/96 •I cic 1 A. RFFERF.N E ANDBACKGRni1ND: On February 12, 1996, the City Council ratified the approval of GMEF Loan No. 012 for Standard Iron & Wire Works, Inc. However, upon preparation of the loan documents for Loan No. 012, the GMEF attorney noted that EDA Commissioner Bill Demeules was a partner of the SELUEMED Limited Liability Partnership, the'borrower'. Unknown to Commissioner Demeules, who had abstained from voting, and unknown to EDA members, a potential conflict of interest prevailed. With the assistance of the GMEF attorney, Minnesota legislators passed an amendment to Minnesota Statutes 1994, Section 471.88 which became law on August 1, 1996. An excerpt of the amendment reads: "If an officer of a local development organization applies for a loan or grant, the officer must disclose as part of the official minutes of a public meeting of the governmental unit that the officer has applied for a loan or grant." Commissioner Demeules' disclosure was entered into the EDA minutes of August 6, 1996, Loan No. 012 became null and void on July 23, 1996; therefore. the EDA requests the City Council review GMEF Loan No. 013 for compliance of the GMEF Guidelines. The GMEF Guidelines state: 'The EDA shall have authority to approve or deny loans; however, within 21 days of EDA approval, the City Council may reverse a decision by the EDA to approve a loan if it is determined by Council that such loan was issued in violation of the GMEF Guidelines." On August 6, 1996, the EDA approved GM EF Loan No. 013, an M&E loan, for $70,000 at a fixed interest rate of 6.25% amortized over 7 years. Loan fee was set not to exceed $1,050, and the GMEF legal fees are the responsibility of the applicant. Collateral, guarantees, and other condition requirements to be determined and prepared by the GMEF attorney. Approved GMEF Loan No. 013 to be disbursed from the liquor fund. Loan No. 013 will share a second position with the Central Minnesota Initiative Fund (CMIF) behind the lender. ThoCMIF loan of $60,000 was approved at an interest rate of 6.5% amortized over five years. The lender of the laser cutting machine is First Rank (St. Cloud) and the lender of the hnrizonWl machine center is First National Bank of Sauk Centre. The brake press has not yet been purchased. Council Agenda - 8/12/96 The average wage of the projected 14 additional employees is $10.30 which does not include benefits. It is not necessary for the company to expand their Monticello facility at this time. After review of the EDA's outline used for approving the GMEF public purpose and policy compliance, the EDA requests the City Council consider the following actions. A motion stating that City Council has determined the EDA approval of GMEF Loan No. 013 for Standard Iron (SELUEMED Limited Liability Partnership) was approved without violation of the GMEF guidelines; therefore, Council supporta the decision by the EDA for loan approval. A motion stating that City Council has determined the EDA approval of GMEF Loan No. 013 for Standard Iron was issued in violation of the GMEF guidelines; therefore, the Council reverses the decision by the EDA for loan approval. A motion to table action until the August 26, 1996 Council meeting date which would not violate the "within 21 day" guideline for City Council to review the EDA's decision of loan approval. C. STAFF RFrOMMFNDATION; Staff supports Alternative 01. D, SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the GMEF criteria used by the EDA; Copy of the preliminary loan application; Copy of the GMEF approval form. EDA AGENDA AUGUST 6, 1996 The proposed uses/sources of funds for this project are estimated as follows: Uses of Funds Laser Cutting Machine $ 725,000 Press Brake Horizontal Machine Center $ 500.000 TOTAL USES OF FUNDS $1,225,000 sour _p -q nf flindn GMEF $ 70,000 CMIF $ 60,000 Lender $1,050,000 Equity(Brake/machine center) S 45.000 TOTAL SOURCES OF FUNDS $1,225,000 This project would be structured as a participation between the lender, the GMEF, and the CMIF for the laser cutting machine. Equity will be utilized for the press brake and r horizontal machine center. The $45,000 of equity financed the laser cutting machine. The company has covered the cost of the GMEF and CMIF dollars while awaiting disbursement. GREATER MONTICELL.n FNTERPRISF. FUND IGNFFI GUIDELINES PUBLIC PURPOSE CRITERIA: Must comply with four or more of the criteria listed below, criteria #1 being mandatory. 1. Creates new jobs: 82 jobs currently, 14 additional (37.5 hpw) jobs within two years. Average wage, $10.30 ph. 2. Increases the community tax base: Annual Estimated Narlut Va3.uo, $1,560,300. Taxes Payable 1996, $78,190.14. The expanded operation does not increase the tax base. Page 3 or EDA AGENDA AUGUST 6, 1996 3. Factors: Assist existing industrial business to expand their operations. The company's business environment meets the City's industrial objectives: nature of business, scrvice and product, no adverse environmental effects, the comprehensive plan and zoning policy. 4. Used as a secondary source to supplement conventional financing: Approximately 85% of the laser and horizontal machines are financed by either First Bank or First National. Approved shared 2nd position with CMIF. 5. Used as gap financing: Used as gap financing (see item 0 6 below) and as an incentive to encourage economic development. 6. Used to assist other funds: Other sources of funds used in addition to the GMEF are the Central Minnesota Initiative Fund (CMIF), the bank, And equity. GRFnTER MONTICELLO ENTERPRISE FUND POt•ICIES I. BUSINESS ELIGIBILITY: Industrial business: Yes. Located within city limits: Yes, Zoned I-2. Credit worthy existing business: Bank and CMIF financing approved and previous GMFF, CMIF, State Grant Loan paybacks are current. Page 4 N. EDA AGENDA AUGUST 6, 1996 $10,000 loan per each job created, or $5,000 per every $20,000 in property market valuation, whichever highest: $140,000 by job created, no increase in property value. Approved: $70,000 II. FINANCING METHOD: Companion Direct Loan: All such loans may be subordinated to the primary lender(s) if requested by the primary lender(s). The GMEF is leveraged and the lower interest rate of the GMEF lowers the effective interest rate on the entire project. First Bank is primary lender and the GMEF and CMIF shared second -position is subordinated to the lender. III. USE OF PROCEEDS: Machine and Equipment. IV. TERMS AND CONDITIONS: Loan Size: Maximum not to exceed 50% of the remaining GMEF balance. Annual GMEF Appropriation Balance, August 6, 1996, $150,000. Loan request, $70,000. Remaining GMEF balance, $80,000. Approved: $70,000. Leveraging: Minimum 608 private/public non-GMEF. Maximum 309 GMEF. Minimum 108 equity of GMEF loan. Lender $1,050,000 (85.78) CMIF $ 60,000 ( 4.99) GMEF $ 70,000 1 5.7%) Equity $ 45,000 ( 3.78) (64.2%) Page 5 600 c EDA AGENDA AUGUST 6, 1996 Loan Term: Personal property term not to exceed life of equipment (generally 5-7 years). Approved: 7 years. Interest Rate: Fixed rate not less than 20 below Minneapolis prime rate. Prime rate per National Bank (First Bank) of Minneapolis on date of EDA loan approval. (Prime 8- 6-96, 8.250) Approved: 6.250 fixed interest rate. Loan Fee: Minimum fee of $200 but not to exceed 1.50 of the total loan project. Fees are to be documented and no duplication of fees between the lending institution and the GMEF. Approved: $70,000 X .015 n Not to exceed $1,050. Prepayment Policy: No penalty for prepayment. Deferral of Payments: 1. Approval of the EDA membership by majority vote. 2. Extend the balloon if unable to refinance, verification letter from two lending institutions subject to Board approval. Interest limitation on guaranteed loans: Subject to security and/or reviewal by EDA. Assumability of Loan: None. Business Equity Requirements: Subject to type of loan; Board of Directors will determine case by case, analysis under normal lending guidelines. Collateral: Mortgage deeds, securities, and/or guarantees as per the GMEF attorney. Approved: As per the GMEF attorney. Page 6 600 EDA AGENDA AUGUST 6, 1996 Non -Performance: This approved GMEF loan shall become null and void if funds are not drawn upon or disbursed within 180 days from the date of EDA approval (August 6, 1996). Null and void February 6, 1997. GMEF Legal Fees: Responsibility of the GMEF applicant. Page 7 506 250 EAST BROADWAY mm -.-0, KL- -C=A Por::VA?° .tc'?L.�ti_CN :-?. "_.^..l.V Standard Iron & Wire Works. for.. BCS--Y'SS A:CFZS3: 207 Dundas Roast. Monticello, MN 55362-3916 5:»eet) tC- _, : S:.ate) (2:? race) SCSM;FSS (612 295-8700 saz ( ) DA--::S_LL:Sr^J: March. 1930 i.D. #:41-0652355 S:.:E MPR=CR R CRPORA"ZON PAR.Vr--,L= ?%NAG= --"4T NA!'. =—Z OGNWS= Lawrence Deneules President 1 Richard Demeules V.P. Industrial Proaucts lily. :fa Joseph Derneules V.P. Operations Sf William Demeules V.P. ulacturing fa M:7-.^_ '.000.:ON: 207 Dundas Road, Monticello, MN 55362 NV BCS--IESS X E7(:S-.--C BOS:RE55 .C^AL P?LSCC' CS^. ES^=AS: 5 1 gy"- m PQ"P9s= CS85: RSCL'ES': LAND S ACLCN: OF LOAN 170_(ntn {:SZ:1G BQ"..JZ`1G C.A'MAL^: CNS°T:ON REQ ESM 5 n rA 1'Ow. uuu APPLICAN^'S WCRF--C 0:1P:= Com= L :AS P MWM Pur quipment :C'71L. OSES S PRCV SZ^.. BEG=W= t 1ACA CV2==ON DAA: M,,rrh In 14g7 •'rr DLL.Z= A.SS=S :'0 BE =Z BY: _ OPERA':2JG E:1:^_':": 8AP_:::PA.:VG LENDER: F1 qt rtni 1k First Nntiona Siuk Centre lllaar! affil First Bank, St. Claud-)eanno Soleim (612) 634-2318 p3g2_921 t raan) ??O3E:1: # CF DTLO!TZS: _�+� PROS # OY E!9G0^� AR A:::T--CN.L Up,.: CaN S:GiI""L•: AdIf SOF APPROVAL OF GREATER MONTICELLO ENTERPRISE FUNDS BY ECONOMIC DEVELP14ENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA Preliminary Loan Application Approval. AUGUST 6, 1996 Loan terms negotiated and agreed upon betweeen the developer, the lending institution, and the EDA Executive Director. Developer, EDA and CMIF Formal Loan Application and Financial Statements analyzed by the lending institution, BDS, Inc. or city staff. FIRST BANK APPROVED M6E LOAN Building and Site Plan Preliminary and/or Final Review. DOES NOT APPLY Build Ing Permit approval or construction commi tment . DOES NOT APPLY Loan documents reviewed and/or prepared DAN GREENSWEIG by the City Attorney. KENNEDY 6 GRAVEN ' ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL: LOAN NUMBER CHEF LOAN NO. 013 LOAN APPROVED YES BORROWER SELounw Llmlcea LIU0111ty Partnership ADDRESS 4U' uunaaa Moaa, nonricello, MN LOAN DISAPPROVED KXKR LOAN AMOUNT iiU,000,vU clan L.AN RATE 6.252 r1Aw 1niAAac, �,A DATE AUGUST 6, 1996 TERMS I Y CAMS FEE ! vi su CAI.rsu a:.uau. unaF LEGAL FEES THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPLICANT. — cn A motion was made by EDA Commissioner AL LARSON to (approve - d@ OU) Greater Monticello Enterprise Funds in the amount of SEVENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NO CENTS 53701000.00) dollars and cents to developerS SELEUMED LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP this 6TH day of AUGUST 1996 Seconded by EDA Commiosioner TOM PERRAULT YEAS: Al LARSON NAYS: NONE TOM PERRAULT ABSENT: CLINT HERBST RON HOGLUND BARB SCHWIENTEK ABSTENTION: WILLIAM (BILL) DEMEULES KEN MAUS GMEF diobu roed 19 _ by Check No. EDA Treasurer CITY COUNCIL MAY REVERSE AN EDA LOAN DECISION WITHIN TWENTY-ONE DAYS OF EDA APPROVAL. CITY COUNCIL RATIFICATION SCHEDULED FOR AUGUST 12, 1996. 5010 GMEF Approval Page 2 ACCEPTANCE OF TERMS )= (We) hereby accept the terms stated aboveas approved by the EcorcmicDevelopmert Authority in and for, e t P Monticello. DATED: F'S' -7— 9H_ • OTHER IF APPROVED GMEF LONA NO. 013 DOLLARS OF $10,000.00 ARE NOT DISBURSED BY FEBRUARY 6, 1997, THE APPROVED LOAN BECOMES NULL AND VOID. APPROVED CHEF LOAN NO. 013 WILL SHARE A SECOND POSITION WITH THE CENTRAL MINNESOTA INITIATIVE FUND BEHIND THE LENDER. LENDER AND CMIF COMMITMENT IN PLACE. COLLATERAL, GUARANTEES, AND OTHER CONDITION REQUIREMENTS TO BE DETERMINED AND PREPARED BY THF. GMEF ATTORNEY. GMEF FEE TO BE PAID AT THE TIME OF GMEF DISBURSEMENT. S� � Council Agenda - 8/12/96 6D. Contaideration of appainting election ludgea for the 1998 PEIUU= and general ele-e lon_s. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The upcoming primary election will be held on Tuesday, September 10, and the general election will be on Tuesday, November 6, 1996. Because of the statutory -imposed deadlines for action, it will be necessary to appoint this year's elections judges at this meeting. The appointed individuals would be serving for both t1he primary and general elections. I am submitting a list of names of people who have previously served as election judges and/or persons who have indicated a willingness to serve as judges at recently held caucuses in Wright County. A questionnaire was sent to those individuals and as of Wednesday, 17 individuals responded that they would be willing to serve as judges at this time. As you may recall, this will be our second election with our new optical scan voting equipment. This new equipment has allowed us to tabulate the results much quicker than in the past, and we feel that the 17 individuals on the list should be an adequate number to perform the election judge requirements. If, alter the primary election, we feel additional judges may be necessary, the Council can stall appoint more judges for the general election as long as it's dome by October 11. Even with the appointment of the listed individuals, it may not be necessary to have all of the individuals working at both the primary and general elections, and the actual scheduling will be determined by the stafflater. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: The only altematAve available is to appoint election judges as required by law. If the Council would like to add anyone's name to the list, you may do so Monday night. None. D. SUPPORTING DATA: List of individuals recommended to be appointed as election judges. 1998 Election Judge List City of Monticello NAME ADDRESS PARTY Yvonne Smith 109 Craig Lane, Monticello MN 55362 DFL Joanne Link 617 E 4 St, Monticello MN 55362 DFL Jeannette Host 416 E River St, PO Box 24, Monticello MN 55362 none Florence Mayer 110 Craig Lane, Monticello MN 55362 DFL Lucille Clausen 320 W Broadway, PO Box 145, Monticello MN 55362 IR Rita Soltau 624 E River St, Monticello MN 55362 DFL Robert Rohlanb 217 Mississippi Dr, Monticello MN 55362 none Shirley Maus 706 W River St, Monticeto MN 55362 IR Opal Stokes 215 Locust St, PO Box 626, Monticello MN 55362 none Bette Grossnickle 505 Elm Str, Monticello MN 55362 none Rosemary Dahl 1229 Sandy Lane, Monticello MN 55362 DFL Dirk WeWeer 6 Center Circle, Monticello MN 55362 none Lynne Dahl PO Box 1075, Monticello MN 55362 none Janet Irvine 325 E 4th St, Monticello MN 55362 IR Kay Gauthier 126 Hiilcrest Rd, Monticello MN 55362 none Edith Custer 1410 Hilltop Dr, Monticello MN 55362 IR Jo Nestand 330 E 3rd St, Monticello MN 55362 IR 5D JUDGES.WK4: 08/08/96 Council Agenda - 8/12196 BE. ConsidAratioa of is ma once of an open burning permit to fi*.e di-psartment to eondu .t a house burn for trahning nimosee (R.W. ) A- REFERENCE Nil BACKGROUND: Mr. John Komarek has recently completed the purchase of two homes located between Prairie West development and the former Gille property. Mr. Komarek intends to move the Hanawalt home and inquired of the Monticello Fire Department whether they would be interested in burning the Banyai house as part of a training exercise. It is my understanding that the fire department is interested in burning this house for training purposes which is allowed under our ordinances for an open burning permit. Although a public hearing is not required, since this parcel is across the street from other residential properties, a notice was published in the Monticello Times indicating that the City Council would be considering issuing a permit to burn this house. In addition, a notice was also sent to property owners within 300 feet advising them that the Council would consider this request Monday night. From a public relations standpoint, fire department members thought this would be a better avenue to notify property owners in advance rather than getting complaints after the bum is started. If the Council is comfortable that the house burn could be conducted for fire training purposes and there is not any opposition from neighborhood residents, the Council could simply authorize the department to proceed with the bum. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTION Approve the issuance of the open burning permit for fire training purposes. Deny the permit. Depending on any public comment that may be received, staff is not aware of any reason why the Council would not issue the permit if you are comfortable with the purpose being for fire training education. If the house burn is simply to save money in demolition cost, the Council may not want to approve a burning permlt. Although it will be beneficial to the property Council Agenda - 8/12/96 owner, it is also beneficial for the fire department to receive training in actual house burn conditions. None. Council Agenda • 8/12196 1 Ill =1.. Wlm l: • Please see the attached planning report from Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. for background. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal at a public hearing on August 6, 1998, and recommended approval of the special permit with two conditions in BddiLiQn to the conditions listed in the attached report. Solid waste resulting from commercial activity at the residence must be disposed of via private contract. Applicant must obtain approval from the Public Works Department and/or PCA to discharge furniture refinishing chemicals into the city wastewater system. There were no objections from the public. The Planning Commission recommended approval based on the finding that the operation of the home occupation as proposed should be transparent to the neighborhood, and thus will not impact the residential character of the neighborhood. The proposal is therefore compatible with the Comprehensive Plan goal of maintaining quality neighborhoods. cur -r: R - - INA Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. C C 0 M M U N I T T PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH PLANNING REPORT TO: Monticello Mayor and City Council Monticello Planning Commission FROM: Madhulika Stngh/Stephen Grittman DATE: 1 August 1996 RE: Monticello - Ron Hall's Home Occupation Permit FILE NO: 191.07 -96.08 Consideration of a soeclal home occumMon ommit for Mr_ Ron Hall to coerate a Mr. Ron Hall has requested a special home occupation permit to operate a furniture repair and finishing office at his residence at 413 E. River Street The proposed business exceeds the requirement of a permitted home occupation (by conducting the business in an accessory building and providing repair services which require equipment other than customarily found in a hone), therefore, the processing cf a 'special home occupation' is necessary. Zoning. The subject property Is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential District, which Iiste home occupations as permitted accessory uses, Business DoseAptlon. The proposed home occupation is a furniture repair and finlahing office. According to the applicant, most of the work Is done on site In the gage located which is an accessory use to the applicant's residence. Uso Intensity. The applicant has indicated that no other person other than the resident will conduct Via furniture repair business. Ho Intends to make the fumiture pick-up and drop-off himself at the customers place of residence. The applicant has not specified any office hours. As a condition of home occupation 1 5775 Wayzata Blvd. - Suite 555 - St. Louis Park, MN 55416 - (612) 595.9636 -Fax. 595-9837 7-00 PA.G-0i-191=E is:W NPC oA' »1 ='. approval, findings should be made by the City that the proposed business use intensity does not constitute the primary use of the property and is consistent with the intent of the Ordinance. Processing. According to Chapter 3-1 1, [C] 2, of the Zoning Ordinance, special home occupations must be applied for, reviewed and disposed of in accordance with the provision of Chapter 22, Administration - Conditional Use Permit, of the Ordinance. The planning commission shall consider possible advOrse effects of the proposed conditional use. Its judgment shall be based upon (but not limited to) the following factors: 1. Relationship to the municipal 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 the surrounding area. 5. The demonstrated need for such use. Compr+ehermive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan does not include any specific policies relating to home occupation establishment. It doss, however, specifically promote canpatible land use relationships. While the City Zoning Ordinance makes allowance for such home occupations in residential areas, it is the Gear intent of the Comprehensive plan to allow such uses to the extent that they do not jeopardize the health, safety and general welfare of the surrounding neighborhoods. Nulsarxe Characteristics. According to Chapter 3-11 (D] of the Zoning Ordinance, no home oca.rpation may produce light, glare, noise, fumes, odor or vibration that will in any way have an objectionable effect upon adjacent or nearby property. According to the property owner, the proposed furniture repair services will not produce any nuisance chareCerlsUcs. Noncompliance with this provision of the Ordinance will justify revocation of the special home occupation permit Building Aitoratiom The applicant intends to locate their oltiaa In their garage for storage and repair of Mvturo. Nertea, no building alteration Is proposed by the applicant FimtBullding Codes. As a condition of home occupation approval, the applicant must demonstrate compliance with all applicable local stats fire and building codes. This Includes machinery and electrical service needs, as well as waste disposal. The applicant Q- "i-01-.SSo 15:10 NAC should identify wastes and the methods of handling them. This issue should be subject to future comments by the City Building Inspector. Exterior Storage. There will be no exterior storage of materials or equipment used in conjunction with the proposed home occupation. As a condition of home occupation approval, the exterior storage of business related materials shall not be allowed. Signage. According to the City Zoning Ordinance, the exterior display of signage which is visible from outside the dwelling is prohibited for home-1pations. The applicant has not specified whether any business related signage is to be erected as a result of the proposed use. Hours of Operation. The City Ordinance stipulates that no home occupation may by conducted between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM unless the occupation is contained entirely within the principal building and will not require any off-street parking facilities. The applicant must dearly identify their business office hours and comply with the Zoning Ordinance requirement Off -Street Parking/Traffic Generation. According to the City Ordinance, no home oaupations may be permitted which results in or generates more traffic than one car for off-street parking at any given point of time. The applicant has indicated that the a.Womers will not come to the place of business and therefore off-street parking may not be an Issue. Approve the special hor, petion permit for one year under the conditions laid out in the staff recommendation section of this report Deny the special home permit request if the Council makes a determination that this activity is not in the character of a residential neighborhood. While special home occupations are permitted in a R-1 DistricL the City should make o determination as to the accoptability of the proposed intensity. If the city judges the intensity of business use to be acceptable, va would recommend approval of the mquested special home occupation permit for one year and subject to the conditions listed below. The applicant would have to roapply for a permit after this period and any renewal shall be processed with the procedural requirements of the initial special RI.5-81-1556 15:10 NRC 612 5i6 ytlS( W.U4/ld4 home occupation permit 1. No home occupation shall produce light glare, noise, odor, or vibration that will in any way have an objectionable effect upon adjacent or nearby property. 2. No equipment shall be used in the home occupation which will create electrical interference to surrounding properties. 3. Any home occupation shall be dearly incidental and secondary to the residential use of the premises. 4. No internal or external stnutum alte, aft shall take place which are not customary to residential dwellings. S. No elderlor storage of business related materials take place on the site. 6. The special home occupation comply wM all applicable fire and building codes. This issue should be subject to further corttr cod by the City Building Inspector. 7. There shall be no exterior display or elxtertor signs or Interior display or interior signs W*h are visible from outside the drelling with the exception of the resident identification sign. , 8. Home occupation aalvltles o=ar between the hours of 7:00 AM and 10.00 PM. 9. No home occupation shall be permitted which results in or generates more traffic than one car for off-street parking at any glven point of time. 10. The City reserves the right to Inspect the premises (within reasonable hours without notice) to ensure compliance with the conditions of special home occupations license issuance. 11. Comments from other City Staff. 4 TOT Council Agenda - 8/12196 8. ConaidpraHOn of gn nmpndmpnt to the zonincr ordinance I ehing a nflzo ina_ ism .t known as 4A (neigbbo automotive related usedistrict)- Applicant- Monticello Plan Commission. (J.0.) Please see the attached planning report from Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. On August 6,1996 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on this matter, reviewed the proposed amendment, and recommended denial of the establishment of the "B -3A" District based on the finding that the current district regulations for B-1 (Limited Business), B-2 (Neighborhood Business), B-3 (Highway Business), and B-4 (Regional Business) are adequate and properly define distinct business districts. Development of an additional business district is, therefore, not necessary. There was public testimony from some neighbors that opposed intensification of "automobile" related uses in the vicinity of the River Road Plaza. Specifically, Dan Gassler, Pastor of A Glorious Church, believed that an automobile maintainence facility would produce a level of noise (air wrenches) that would impact adjoining properties. Two additional planning agenda items relating to the auto lube facility were tabled by the Planning Commission pending further discussion and action by City Council on the B -3A Zoning Amendment. These items include: a request to amend the zoning map, and a request for a conditional use permit which would allow the auto lube facility to operate in the now zoing district. For your information, 1 have included the reports on these items for your review. No action can be taken on these items until the Planning Commission makes a formal recommendation. If the City Council approves the establishment of the B -3A District, the map amendment and the conditional use permit request will be on the city council agenda one month from now. Please see the attached report for information and alternatives. SUPPORTING DATA NAC report; B-2 regulations; B-3 regulations with summary listing of B-3 conditional uses; Comments from Dan Mielke. auG-011-1996 15:00 rF 0- — — rNorthwest Associated Consultants, Inc. C COMMUNITY PUNNING • DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH MEMORANDUM T0: Monticello Planning Commission Jeff O'Neill FROM: Stephen Gridman DATE: August 1, 1996 RE: Monticello - Zoning Ordinance Amendment - B -3A District FILE NO: 191.06 - 96.06 ' Consideration of an Amendment to the (Monticello Zoning Ordinance establishing e new Zoning DlWc . known as "8-3A, Nelghborhood Autonmtivo Rolatod Uso District". Applicant - Monticello Planning Commission. A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The City recently turned down a request to add Automotive Maintenance facilities, such as Oil and lube strops, to the B-2 or PZM Districts, which would have allowed Investors Together to Construct such a facility near to Total Mart station on east County 75. A follow, up approach being proposed Is the osttfishment of a UmIted business district In the area which would permit the typo of commercial esiabllshmant requested by Invoston Together. Nowovor, thorn was concern that a 84 District would not be appropriate in this location, since it would allow the full range of automotive related uses. As a result a modified B-3 District tabaled 'B -2W Is pre3wftd for the Citys consideration. This disc id is intended to allow limited commercial uses which are of a convenience nature and oompo blo with neighborhood residwWaIl uses, Since the discussion of this tasue was generated by the Investors Together proposal for a olOube facility. gaff h= Incorporated this use Into the new district utilizing the criteria which were discussed in the previous toxt amendment proposal. 5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, Iv1N 55416 • (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595.9837 $• A AUG -01-1 6 15:00 NAC 612 505 91337 P.03i09 The need for this district essentially comes down to whether the City believes that Its current zoning districts do an adequate job of providing a full range of business opportunity. Staff has suggested that there is a need for a better definition of downtown commercial in order to accomplish the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The oil/lube facility would currently fel within the 8-3 District along with other auto -related businesses, and the City was not inclined to change this at the time of the previous request. The Montiosilo Community Partners have also been studying these issues, primarily from the perspective of the effect on downtown commercial center activity. The concern which was raised over the *Automotive Maintenance' use, as distinguished from 'Automotive Repair" is that it would be difficult to regulate the maintenance use and keep a from expanding into a more intensive actively. For instance, the ordinance suggests that the intent of the Conditional Use is to allow'while-you-wait' services. Assuming that the business will have busy periods, some stacking and parking of vehicles will probably occur. This becomes a problem for the City when the storage lasts for more than a few minutes. Is one hour too long? One afternoon? All day? The City would be required to monitor how long trsdivid<ml vehicles are being stored on-site to ascertain compliance. Moreover, as the business grows and expands its range of services, this problem could become more intense. A second concern is whether or not such facilities are truly 'neighborhood convenience commercial . It has been suggested that neighborhood convenience infers frequent trips, such as the convenience store, the gasoline station, or even the Car wash. Under this definition, automotive maintenance would be excluded since it Is likely to attract business from any particular consumer at a rate of one trip per every two or three months. With such infrequent patronage, such a use should be located In areas of similar patronage. Approve the Zoning Ordinance Amendment creating a'13 -3v4 District, as submitted. Approval of the amendment should be be upon findings which klentiry a need for the zoning district to provide adequate business opportunity, in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. Approve the Zoning Ordinance Amendment creathsg a'8 -3A' District, as amended in discussion. K the City believes that the B,iA District Is an Important tool to provide, and control, business opportunity, but that the list of proposed uses in the draft district ordinance needs to bo dtanged, this Alternative should be chosen. The City should Included findings as to the need for the now district in achieving the goats of the Comprehensive Plan. r RZ-01-1906 1501 NRC b1G »> oo.ar.puapp 3. Denial of the Ordinance amendment creating a 'B -3A' District This option should be be upon a finding that the current zoning dlstrtcts adequately further the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, at least in the areas which would be affected by this amendment. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: We recommend denial of the 9-3A District Amendment In aur view, the current &2 end B3 Districts do a reasonable job of d lowing the various" a of commercial uses, without a loss of land use control As we had uuggeated in diswssiorn regarding implementation dfhe Comprefarmive Plan, the primary concern over the Cys Zoning Ordinance lies in the need to better address a downtown district Staff believes that ft distinction between Automotive Repair and Automotive Maintenance could be a legitimate one. However, the problems with future growth, and the Chys role in enforcement would ovwIde the disiftbort. VYO do not believe that the City can say that d'wghg oil is flue, but dmrtgirtp bees is not The City may regulated the impacts an land use. The attempt to distinguish between the two uses is based on impacts, such as the storage of automobiles for sovioe. As noted previously, as the business grows, this Issue is likely to become more difficult for the City to enforce. previously, the City has said that d would not approve the addition of Automotive Maintenance to the 8-2 District due to these same concerns. We have seen nothing that would alter the Citys view of tftis issue. Wilda the 843A District Is a on of bridge between B-2 and 8-3 uses, the issue of enforoement for the Automotive Maintenance would still be present Draft Ordinance PUG -01-1956 15:01 NPC 612 595 9637 F.05/09 city of Mmdcello, Mumesou Ordinance AN ORDINANCE AbUNDING TME 10, CRAM -ERS 4 AND 13 OF THE MON-nCELLO CITY CODE, KNOWN AS Til ZONING ORDINANCE, BY ADDING A NEW DISTRICT TO BE ]KNOWN AS "11-3A, NEIGHBORHOOD AM-REATFD BUSINESS DISTRICT AS CHAPTER 13A. The City Council of the City of Maoticell hereby ordain: Bastion 1. Chapter 4, Subd. (B] is bereby amended to read as follows: 1B] BUSINESS DISTRICTS: 1. 9-1, neighborhood business district 2. S-2, limited business district 3. B-3, highway business district 4. B -3A, neighborhood auto -related business district 5. B-4, regional business district Sedlon 2. Cbsptes 13 is bireby amendbd by adding the following: CHAPTER 13A 'B -3A' NEIGHBORHOOD AUTO -RELATED BUSINESS DISTRICT SECTION: 13A-1: Purpose 13A -2t Permitted Uses 13A-3: Pezmitted Accessory Uses 13A-4: Conditional Uses 13A-1: PURP0 E: The purpose of the 'B -3A' Neighborhood Auto - related Business District is to establish appropriate locations for neighborhood commercial areas which provide convenience or automobile related services for local markets, but not intensive automotive sales or repair. This district should be located in areas of good intra - community access, and may be in close proximity to AW -01-19% 15:01 NPC 612 Sm'!� 'zi y t H. U./vi residential areas where substantial steps are made to mitigate possible adverse effects of commercial use on the neighborhood. The B -3A District rill be distinguished from the more inclusive B-3 District which will also allow commercial uses which attract a significant level of regional traffic in addition to local markets. 13A-2: PERbII'ITED USES: The following are permitted uses in a 'B -3A' district: [A] All permitted uses as allowed in a 'B-1' sad 'B-2' district. (B] Auto accessory sales store, but not service. (C1 Private clubs or lodges as permitted in a 'B-31 district. 13A-3: ACCESSORY USES: The following are permitted accessory uses in a '8-3A' district: ]A] All permitted accessory uses as allowed is a 'B-21 district. 13A-4: CONDITIONAL USES: The following are conditional uses in a 'B-31" district: (A] COWMCIAL RECREATIONAL USES, PROVIDED THAT: 1. Setbacks and site design for all buildings comply with the buffer sone requirements of Section 3.3 (C) of the Monticello Zcaing Ordinance. 2. Access is provided via a street which does not interfere with residential local street access. 3. No outdoor storage is allowed on the pzoperty. 4. The provisions of Chapter 22 of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. (B] RESTAURANT, CA", OR TSA ROOM, PROVmso TSATs i. The business meets the definieion of restaurant in this Ordinance, and is not a 'convenience', 'fast food% or 'drive through' restaurant. 2. Setbacks and site design for all buildings fiW-01-1956 15:01 NFC 612 595 9837 P.07i09 comply with the buffer :one requirements of Section 3-3 (G1 of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. 3. The business is not a tavern or bar. 4. The primary access is from a collector street, or non-residential local street. 5. The provisions of Chapter 22 of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. [C] CARW1SHES (DRIVE THROUGH, MECHANICAL, AND SELF SERVICE) PROVIDED THAT: 1. The requirements of Section 13-4 (Bl of this Ordinance are met. (D) DAY CAR CENTERS, PROVIDED THAT: 1. The requirements of Section 13-4 (0] of this Ordinance are met. (E] AVTOMOBILS MA=7TSWCE FACILITIES PROVIDED THAT: 1. The architectural appearance and functional plan of the building and site shall not be so dissimilar to the atisting buildings or area an to cause impairment in property values or constitute a blighting influence within a reasonable distance of the lot. 2. The use of the facility is limited to short term, while you wait, automobile maintenance activities and not automobile repair as defined in this Ordinance. 3. Buffer yard requirements of Chapter 3, Section 3.6 of this Ordinance are satisfied. 4. Each light standard island and all Mande in the parking lot shall be landscaped or covered. 5. Parking spaces shall be screened from view of abutting residential districts in coMliance with Chapter 3, Section 2(0] of this Ordinance. 6. The entire area other than occupied by the buildings or plantings shall be surfaced with material which will control dust and drainage which is subject to the approval of the City M, PLG -01-1956 1501 Mx 612 5J� xhsr r. iavw� Engineer. 7. The entire area shall have a drainage system which is subject to the approval of the City Engineer. A. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source ie not visible from the public right-of-way or from an abutting residence and shall hye in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 1S) of this Ordinance. 9. Vehicular access points shall be limited, shall create a mli*i—,m of conflict with through traffic movemsnt, and shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 10. All signing and informational or visual coaramaication devices shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 9 of this Ordinance. 11. Provisions are made to control and reduce noise. 12. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this Ordinance are Considered and satisfactorily met. ' 13. Automobile maintenance facility shall have direct access to major thoroughfare via driveway or frontage road. 14. Intermittent sounds produced by automobile maintenance facility shall not be audible to uiaere of adjoining PZM or residential properties. 1P1 CMMMC=U PIJUMM UNIT D3VSIADDOWT, PROVMED TIOLM 1. The requirements of Chapters 20 and 22 of thLis Ordinance are met. SKIhm 3. Mb 10, Secdon 2-2 of the Mondcano City Cade (Zaoing Ddic mma) h hereby emended to add the foftowinl: AM (1) AtTTObt a= MAI2TP82OW0 YACILM l business which providoe short term, while you wait, automobile maintenance service to autcarobiles and light trucks of acne thousand (9,000) GW or less. Serv:Lce activities include oil changing, lubrication, tare rotation and the like but in no case may include FUG -01-1996 1502 NFC 612 SSS 9837 P. 09/M repair activities. Automobile maintenance facilities shall be distinguished from minor automobile repair facilities in that only while you wait service may be provided and vehicular storage shall be prohibited. Secdo- 0. Tb a Ordinance abaR take effect and be in full forte fmm and after is passago and pubheation. Brad Pgle. mayor ATrM: Rick Wol =Ucr. Adminiat= AYES: NAYS: V-,Yg TGTFL P.09 rN C 1D;44 i. - Northwest Associated COMM UNITY PLANNING • 01910 �10 MEMORANDUM TO: Monticello Planning Commission Jeff O'Neill FROM: Stephen Grittman Consultants, Inc. N• MARKET RESEARCH p� Q� rp DATE: August 1, 1996 RE: Monticello - Rezoning of the PZM District Area at County 75, 39, 8118 FILE NO: 191.06 - 96.08 Consideration ad Rezoning property cunontly zoned "PZM" east of the City's wastewater treatsrent plan and north of County 78. Applicant - Investons Together and Monticello Planning Commission. This rezoning request has been initiated by lnvestort Together to affect their property Wong County Road 75, and has been expanded by the City to include consideration of the appropriate zoning in the entire area. Linked to this request Is the oonsldoration of a naw commerdel zoning district, and subsequently, Investors Togaftwes requost for a Conditional Use Permit for an Automotive Maintenance facility. At Issue is the current PZM designation of the fend In this area. The PZM district to a mixed use district which allows a full range of residential uses, from single family to multiple family, and all of the commercial uses in the 8-1 and B-2 districts. B3 District uses aro not allowed in the PZM area. The flexibility given by tho PZM approach also comes with a certain amount of confusion. Under PZM, neither the City nor the property owner have a clear picture of whet land uses should be allowed. Without this dinsalon, the property owner can not know what the City expects, and the City may be faced with requests for land uses which It doesn't want, but cannot reasonably deny. 5775 Wayzata Blvd. - Suite 555 - Sl. Louis Park. IAN 55416 - (612) 595.9636-Fax.595.9 37 �•s As a result we believe that a better definition to the pattern of zoning in this area would be beneficial. If the City adopts the B -3A District, this would likely be the most appropriate commercial designation for at least a part of the area. If the City does not adopt the 8-3A District, a choice must be made between B-2 and B-3. In either scenario, the extent of commercial zoning should be defined, so as to better determine the appropriate uses on other area property. The future land use of to area at the junction of County Roads 75, 39, and 118 is affected by several issues. One of the Comprehensive Plan issues which received a great deal of attention is the traffic on County 75 between the downtown area and the Interstate. Among the options considered were traffic calming efforts along Broadway, potential re- routing of through traffic to another location, and retaining the current pattern In order to benefit downtown business. Monticello Community Partners are currently studying the possible options, particularly in view of the impacts to downtown business. In our view, the network of major transportation outlets in this area Justify a certain level of commercial land use in this area. The Comprehensive Plan suggests that the City's primary commercial areas will be the downtown area north of 1-94, and the emerging growth area south of 1-94. However, limited convenience commercial is important in other areas to avoid over -utilization of major commercial zones. The very concept of convenience commercial Is to allow comparatively low volume, short duration trips to occur outside of the main commercial districts. For many Monticello residents, the area in question is an area which is frequented in daily traffic patterns. This area makes sense as a site for a small concentration of convenience commercial activity. The question becomes whether the appropriate zone should be 8-2 or 8-3 (or 8-3A if approved). The 8-3 District allows several automotivo related land uses, including automotive repair, motels, and other similar uses. The B-2 District allows primarily low intensity retail uses, and some limited convenience uses, Including car washes and convenience storeigasoline stations. Essentially, the B-2 District attempts to capture existing local traffte, whereas the B-3 District attempts to capturo both local and non -local traffic. With Mm guidelines in mind, the B-2 District would be appropriate if the City believes that the traffic in this area should be either deflected to other routes, or kept in place. This is because if the traffic is rerouted, it would be assumed that the purpose was to put the traffic where it can best bonefit the commercial areas identified in the Comprehensivo Plan. If the traffic is to be left In place, it would be assumed that tho purpose of this choke would be to continue to encourage that traffic to get to the downtown area as efficiently as possiblo. Under either scenario, a 8-3 District would be Intercepting a share of the non - local traffic, counter to the objective of tho traffic plan. yoft a certain amount of Convenience traffic is non4=01 as well, the primary objectivo of the B-2 District is to serve local traffic. Thus, the choke of routing of traffic would bo Irrelevant to the success of the district, and the B-2 uses would 'compete' lose with other, more Intense, commercial districts. As to the wdent of the commercial district. we have provided a proposed map which would delineate a limited amount of land for commercial rezoning at this time. Since this district is not intended to be a primary business zone, regardless of zoning designation, limiting its size is considered important to helping ensure the success of the other commercial areas in the City. Residential uses are therefore shown for the other PZM zoned land in the area. Due to the high traffic levels and proximity to the interstate (and its associated noise), these areas are not viewed as prime single family development land. We would recommend that the City consider mid- to high-density residential uses for these properties. Z ring for these uses would be accomplished at a future hearing. In order to mardam control of both density and Quality of design, we would recommend consideration of a Planned Unit Development District designation. Approve a rezoning of the subject area, as illustrated on the attadwd Map 1, to the new B.3A MwicL This alternative would be appropriate if the City approves the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance whim creates the B -3A District. Suggested findings would Include the Cat's Intent to permit limited convenience and auto4elated commercial uses in this high-volume commuter traffic route. Approve a rezoning of the subject area, as Illustrated on the attached Map 2, to the B-2 District - This alternative would be appropriate if the City believea that limited convenience commercial lend use In the area Is needed to provide reasonable commercial opportunity to the east side of the con munity. but to avoid competition with the primary commorcial areas as designated In the Comprohonsive Plan. Findings should inotude a statement cis to the compatibility of this proposal with the Comprehensive Plan objectives and land uses. Approve a rezoning of the subject area, as glustrated on the attached Map 3, to the B-3 District This ertemattvo would be appropriate if the City believes that due to baton and traffe capadty, the area should acoommodato more Intensive oommerelal use than the 8.2 or B•3A Districts allow. Suggested findings would include discussion of traffic volumes present in tho area due to commuter traffic, through traffic, and the proximity to the High School and Hospital campuses. e KQ KA] -41-17= 1' ;;W5 I - Denial of the rezoning from PZM to any commercial district This option would be appropriate if the City believes that the PZM dist lct provides a reasonable amount of flexibility in accommodating various mined land uses in the area Staff recommends rezoning the area shown on Map 2 to B-2. As noted in the previous discussion, the City has designated other areas, Including the downtown and the south Highway 25 corridor, as the primary commercial districts of the community. As a result, limited convenience commercial is the most .... ',:.: commercial land use of any areas outside of the primary districts. The uses In the 8-2 District should compete only mildly with the primary districts, while providing an important convenience outlet for local trip business. business. The B-3 District opens the area uses to b Amesses which are rat rteoessartly convenience related, and as a result, compete more directly with the primary commercial disbicts. Although on a limited scale, B,3 usos would not likely create negative impacts, the B-2 District is better suited to the intent of the Comprehensive Plan for Oft area Map f - Draft Zoning Map Amendment for the B.3A Dlstrtct Map 2 - Draft Zoning Map Amendmern for the 8-2 District Map 3 - Draft Zoning Map Amendment for the B-3 Ditstrid +L • I - ',' Ply r. � . .!'r" ,�• � INA rkt�R�t 33 M$p 1 g,�p piatrict • ' �1SSfSs�PP �'" �i, ° �Ci �� ,��. �-i� tl 7 J . iii _ { �'� 15,42 Wilm, 4C., P OOQ -, �,. ,y�S's'Ss._ , _ `� . _ 9 n _ .l � ! �i""i." :'•:- •moi ... 33 Map 3 g,3 ptttG��cxi. P.� r rAW-a1-1?96 15ru 23 x Iry Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. 1 I AIC COMMUNITY PLANNING • DESIGN • MARKET RESEARCH PLANNING REPORT T0: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Monticello Mayor and City Council Monticello Planning Commission Bob KlrmislStephen Grittman 1 August 1996 Monticello - Express lube 191.07 - 96.03 4� ISr� / lL Jv o- AnUcipating a rezoning of their 37,570 square foot property from a PZM, Performance Zoned Mixed to either a B-3, Highway Business or B -3A, Neighborhood Automotive Related Use District, Investors Together, Inc, have requested a conditional use permit to establish an 'Express Lube and Detail Cloaning Center' upon a 37,560 square foot site located north of County Road 75 and west of County Road 116. Both the B-3 and B -3A Districts Il: t automobile maintenance facilities as a conditional use. Previously, the City had turned down a request by the applicant to add automobile maintenance facilities as a conditional use In the PZM District. 8poclfically, the applicants request calls for the construction of a 2,600 square foot Express Lube/Detall Cleaning Center. Such construction will constitute a westerly expansion of a car wash facility which currently exists on the property. The applicant's previous application Identified Cleaning center componoM as a future phase of the project Conditional Use Parrett As noted previously, the applicants have requested a conditional use permit In anticipation of a B-3 or B -3A zoning designation being applied to the property. Tho purposo of the roqulred conditional use permit process is to enable the City Council to assign dlmcnslons to a proposed use or Conditions surrounding it after consideration 5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suile 555 • St. Louis Park. MN 55416 • (612) 595-9636•FFaax. 595.98 y o-,400 AUG -01-19% 1524 NRt. — _cam �c•.< of adjacent uses and their functions and the special problems which the proposed use presents to provide the City of Monticello with a reasonable degree of discretion in determining the suitability of certain designated uses upon the general welfare, pubic health and safety. Procedurally, the Planning Commission and City Council must consider the possible adverse effects of the proposed conditional use. Its judgement shall be based upon but not limited to the following factors: Relationship to municipal Comprehensive Plan. The geographical area involved. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which It is proposed. The character of the surrounding area. The demonstrated need for such use. Neighborhood Character. As noted previously, the Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission and City Council to consider the character of the area in which the use has been proposed. The following Is a listing of uses which Ile adjacent to the property in question: Direction Use North Multiple Family Residential (Townhomes) South County Road 75lRad Line East Commercial (Convenience Ston) West Single Family Reaidential Of key importance in determining the compatibility of the proposed use with the neighborhood will be compliance with applicable buffer yard requirements of SactIon 3. 3.G. Details relating to such buffer yard requirements are highlighted In the following soction of this report. Provided applicable butter yard requirements are satisfied it Is believed the proposed use can compatibly exist upon ft subject site. SereeWr lLandscapingfOuffer Yard Requirements. As a condition of CUP approval, e landscape plan should be submitted which Identifies the type, location and else of all proposed site plantings, as well as compliance with the aforementioned buffer yard requirements. According to the Ordinance, the following buffor yard requirements are applicable to the subject property. IJ —U -dl -1»o LD -c" �•+� ___ Direction Minimum Buik ing Buffer Yard Waith Number of Plants Per Setback 100 Feet of Property Line• North 30 feet 20 feet so South NA MA NA East None Norm None West 40 feet 30 feel 120 Location of an opaque fence or earth berm at least five feet in height within buffer yard shall be considered credit toward plant unit requirement The number of required plant units may be reduced by 50 percim t. Lot Combination. As shown on Efdtibit D. the proposed 'detail cleaning oentee 1A to overlay two parcels of land. As a condition of CUP approval, such lots should be legally combined so as to avoid the possible sale of a potion of the subject site. Additionally, the City Engineer should provide comment in regard to any necessary easement vacations. Lot Area Requiromenf. As shown below, all applicable B-3 District lot area and width requirements have been satisfactorily met Required Proposed Lot Ama 22,500 fpr 37,560 lest" Lot Width 150 fear : 200 feet" • Applicable to auto-repalr - minor facillties "Assumes lot combination gR0 Setbacks. As shown below, the proposed 'Express Lube and Detail Cleaning Center, does not meet all applicable B-3 District setbacks. • Buffer Yard Setback Requirement Legal non -conformity As a condition of CUP approval, the site pian should be revised such that new construction meets applicable structure setback requirements. Building Helght/Suildhtg Materials. To determine compliance with City building height and building material requirements, building elevations (drawn to scale) should be submitted which identify structure height and finish materials. OB -Street Parking. Perking Supply. The Zoning Ordinance does not provide a specific off-elreet parking standard for automobile maintenance facilities. As part of the attached amendment, however, an off -West parking requirement applicable to the proposed use has been Included. Such standard is referenced In an American Planning Association (APA) document entitled 'Off -Street Parking Requirements for Oil Change Facilities'. As calculated below, and assuming five service bays, the proposed automobile maintenance facility is required to protide twelve off-street parking stalls. Spaces Ilse Ratin $pgyjre�d Automobile Maintenance Two spaces plus 12 Facility (five service bays) two spaces per service bay According to the submitted ab plan. a total of seven oft-etrest parking stalls have been proposed. As a conditlon of CUP approval, the site plan should be revised to satisfy off-street parking requirements. 4 0 Required Proposed Front Yard 30 feet 89 feet Side Yard - East 10 feet 6 feet— Side Yard - West 40 feet' 23 feet Rear Yard 30 fear 33 feet • Buffer Yard Setback Requirement Legal non -conformity As a condition of CUP approval, the site pian should be revised such that new construction meets applicable structure setback requirements. Building Helght/Suildhtg Materials. To determine compliance with City building height and building material requirements, building elevations (drawn to scale) should be submitted which identify structure height and finish materials. OB -Street Parking. Perking Supply. The Zoning Ordinance does not provide a specific off-elreet parking standard for automobile maintenance facilities. As part of the attached amendment, however, an off -West parking requirement applicable to the proposed use has been Included. Such standard is referenced In an American Planning Association (APA) document entitled 'Off -Street Parking Requirements for Oil Change Facilities'. As calculated below, and assuming five service bays, the proposed automobile maintenance facility is required to protide twelve off-street parking stalls. Spaces Ilse Ratin $pgyjre�d Automobile Maintenance Two spaces plus 12 Facility (five service bays) two spaces per service bay According to the submitted ab plan. a total of seven oft-etrest parking stalls have been proposed. As a conditlon of CUP approval, the site plan should be revised to satisfy off-street parking requirements. 4 0 Dimensional Requirements. All proposed parking stalls and drive aisles have been found to meet or exceed minimum Ordinance requirements. Handicap Stalls. In accordance with State American Disability Ad requirements, one off-street handicap parking stall must be provided upon the she. Curbing. In accordance with Zoning Ordinance requirements, all off-street parking areas must be provided a six inch non -surmountable concrete curb. Surfacing. In accordance with Ordinance requirements, the proposed off-street parking area is to be surfaced in a bituminous material. Curb Cut. In what is considered a positive site design feature, a single 24 foot wide cub from County Road 75 has been proposed. An existing curb cut along the site's eastern boundary is to be omitted. As a condition of CUP approval, such county road access must be subject to approval by the Wright County Highway Department and City Engineer. Loading. The Zoning Ordinance does not provide a specific off-street loading requirement for uses such as that being proposed. As a condition of CUP approval, however, a speafic off-street loading space should be designated upon the submitted site plan. Lighting. It has not been Indicated whether any exterior lighting Is to be provided on site. Any lighting used to Illuminate off-street parking or outdoor storage areas must be hooded and directed to deflect light away from adjacent properties and public rights-of-way. Signage. As a condition of CUP approval, all applicable City sign requirements must be satisfied. Grading and Drainage. As a condition of CUP approval, a grading and drainage plan must be submitted. Such plan will be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Nolso. IntenNttent sounds produced by automobile maintenance facilities should not be audible to adjoining residential properties. As a condition of CUP approval, the applicant should provide information regarding proposod noise mitigation efforts. Trash. The site plan does not indicate whether trash is to be storod outdoors. If a trash receptacJe is to be stored outside tho principal structure, It must be saaened from view of neighboring properties. B_ ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS The applicant has submitted pians to construct a 2,600 square foot automobile maintenance facility. 1. Conditional Use Permit Approval (With Conditions) This akemallve would allow the establishment of an automobile maintenance facility upon the subject property, provided several conditions are imposed to insure use compatibility and proper site functioning. Findings: 1. The proposed project is consistent vrith the spirit and intent of the Monticello Cemprehenstve Plan goals and policies and In keeping with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. The proposed project is consistent with the purpose of the performance standards of the 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 pmjed shall meet minimhmh screening and landscaping requirements as outlined herein. S. The proposed project shall provide adequate parking and loading as outlined herein. 6. The proposed project shell not impose any undue burden upon public facilities and services. 7. Tho proposed project is designed In such a ffumer to form a desirable and unified onvironmem within its boundaries which will not be detrimental to Mture land Laos In surrounding areas. Architechre and site treatments shall be compatible with adjacent structures and site plans and shall respect the privacy of nelghboring businesses. 6 M Conditions: 1. The City approve a rezoning of the property to accommodate the proposed use (B-3 or B -3A District designation). 2. The two lots which underlie the subject property are legally combined. 3. The City Engineer provide comment and recommendation In regard to the need for easement vacation. 4. The site plan is revised to meet applicable setback requirements (buffer yard). 5. ' Use of the facility is limited to automobileAlght truck all changes. 6. The applicant demonstrate compliance with City building height and building material requirements through the submission of building elevations. 7. The site plan Is revised to illustrate a total of 12 off-street parking stalls. a. One handicap parking stall is provided In accordance with the State American Disability Act requirements. 9. All off-street perking areas are provided a six Inch non -surmountable concrete curb. 10. The proposed 35 foot curb cut Is subject to approval by the Wright County Highway Department and City Engineer. 11. The site plan is modified to Illustrate an off-street loading space. 12. A landscape plan is submitted and approved which Identifles the type, location, and size of all site plantings. Such plan shall also demonstrate compliance with applicable buffer yard requirements. 13. All lighting used to Illuminate off-street parking be hooded and directed to deflect light away from adjacent properties and public rights-of-wey. 14. All City sign requirements are satisfactorily met. 15. A grading and drainage plan Is submitted subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 16. Intermittent sounds produced by the oll change operations are not audible to adjacent residential properties. 7 17. All exterior trash handling facilities are screened from view of adjacent properties and public rights-of-way. 18. Developer agrees that it will be responsible for any reconstructlon or restoration In the event that the City needs to do drainage and utility work in the City's easement. 2. Conditional Use Pemdt Denial A second alternative available to the City would be to deny the requested Conditional use permit If the City dwoses to deny the conditional use pemdt, it should be be upon the following findings: 1. The proposed use Is not consistent with the spirit and Intent of the Monticello Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. 2. The proposed use is likely to have an adverse impact upon surrounding pnopertles. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Provided the City funds the proposed use of the properly to be appropriate (mid approves the necessary rezoning), staff recommends approval of the requested condltlonal use Permit subject to the fulfillment of the 18 conditions listed above. D. SUPPORTING DATA Attached for reference: ExhibitA - Site Location Exhibit 8 - Detailed Site Location Exhibit C - Previous Site Plan Exhibit D - Revised Site Plan e r-1 LA �04 /* '7U �04 -- .CITY o F MONTICELL 0 wwGwr eourry mumisou �bd CHAPTER 12 "B-2" LIMITED BUSINESS DISTRICT '�W* felu 12-1: Purpose 12-2: Permitted Uses 12-3: Permitted Accessory Uses 12-4: Conditional Uses 12-1: PURPOSE: The purpose of the B-2, limited business, district is to provide for low intensity retail or service outlets which deal directly with the customer for whom the goods or services are furnished. The uses allowed in this district are to provide goods and services on a limited community market scale and located in areas which are well served by collector or arterial street facilities at the edge of residential districts. 12-2: PERMITTED USES: The following are permitted uses in a B-2 district: (A) All permitted uses as allowed in the B-1, neighborhood business, district. (B) Art and school supplies. [C] Bakery goods and baking of goods for retail sales on the premises. [D) Bank, savings and loan, savings credit unions, and other financial institutions. [E) Bicycle sales and repair. (F) Candy, ice cream, popcorn, nuts, frozen desserts, and soft drinks. (G) Camera and photograhic supplies. [H] Commercial (loased) and professional offices. (I) Delicatessen. (J] Dry cleaning pickup and laundry pickup stations, including incidental repair and assembly but not including processing. (R) Drug store. [L] Florist shop. f -Ad MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 12/1 IMI Frozen food store but not including a locker plant. (N] Gift or novelty store. (0) Grocery, fruit, or vegetable store but not including sales from moveable motorized vehicle. IN Grocery, supermarket. (0] Hardware. [R) Hobby store, including handicraft classes but not to exceed fifteen (15) students. (S) Ice sales with storage not to exceed five (5) tons. [T] Insurance sales. (U) Locksmith. (v) Meat market but not including processing for a locker plant. [w] Medical and dental offices and clinics. (X] Paint and wallpaper sales. (Y) Plumbing, television, radio, electrical sales, and such repair as are accessory use to retail establishment permitted within this district. [Z] Public utility collection offices. [AA] Public garage. (BB) Real estate sales. (CC) Shoe repair. [DD) Glass sales and service. (EE) Professional and commercial offices. [FF) Jewelry store/watch repair. (GG] Gas station/convenience store. (02/10/92, 02 20) 12-3: PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES: The following are permitted accessory uses in a B-2 district: (A) All permitted accessory uses as allowed in a B-2 district. If- ee MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 12/2 12-4: CONDITIONAL USES: The following are conditional uses in a B-2 district: (Requires a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated by Chapter 22 of this ordinance.) [A] Multiple family buildings provided that: 1. Development is compatible with existing and planned use of the area and conflicts are not created between commercial and residential use and activities. 2. The lot, setback, and building requirements outlined in Chapter 3, Sections 2, 3, and 4, of this ordinance are complied with. 3. At least five hundred (500) square feet of useable open space as defined in Chapter 2, Section 2, of this ordinance is provided for each dwelling unit. 4. Adequate off-street parking and off-street loading is provided in compliance with Chapter 3, Sections 5 and 6. 5. The development is adequately served by a collector or arterial street. 6. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. [a) Governmental and public utility buildings and structures necessary for the health, safety, and general welfare of the community provided that: 1. Conformity with the surrounding neighborhood is maintained and required setbacks and side yard requirements are met. 2. Adequate screening from neighboring uses and landscaping is provided in accordance with Chapter 3, Section 2, of this ordinance. 3. The provisions of Chaptor 22 of this ordinance aro considered and satisfactorily met. (C) Commercial planned unit development as regulated by Chapter 20 of this ordinance. g•2z MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 12/3 CHAPTER 13 "B-3" HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT SECTION: 13-1: Purpose 13-2: Permitted Uses 13-3: Permitted Accessory Uses 13-4: Conditional Uses 13-1: PURPOSE: The purpose of the "B-3," highway business, district is to provide for and limit the establishment of motor vehicle oriented or dependent commercial and service activities. 13-2: PERMITTED USES: The following are permitted uses in a "B-3" district: (A] All permitted uses as allowed in a B-1 and B-2 district. [B] Auto accessory store. (C) Commercial recreational uses. [D] Motels, motor motels, and hotels provided that the lot area contains not less than five hundred (500) square feet of lot aroa per unit. (E] Restaurants, cafes, tea rooms, taverns, and off -sale liquor, provided that the use is not located within 300 ft of a residential zone. (09/26/94, #259) [F] Private clubs or lodges serving food and beverages with use being restricted to members and their guests. Adequate dining room, kitchen, and bar space must be provided according to standards imposed upon similar unrestricted customer operations. The serving of alcoholic beverages to members and their guests shall be allowed, providing that such service is in compliance with applicable federal, state, and municipal regulations. offices of such use shall be limited to no more than twenty (20) percent of the gross floor area of the building. (G) Taxi terminals, stand, and offices. (H) Small printing or publishing business employing six (6) or less persons. 13-3: PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES: The following are permitted accessory uses in a "B-3" district: MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE Tr•- 17/1 [A] All permitted accessory uses as allowed in a B-2," limited business, district. [131 Adult Use/Accessory (01/13/92, #217) 13-4: CONDITIONAL USES: The following are conditional uses in a B-3" district: (Requires a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated by Chapter 22 of this ordinance.) [A] Drive-in and convenience food establishments. [131 Carwashes (drive through, mechanical, and self-service). [C] Motor fuel station, motor fuel station/convenience store, auto repair - minor, and tire and battery stores and service. [D] New and used automobile/light truck sales and display. [E] Open and outdoor storage as a principal or accessory use. [F] Open or outdoor service, sale, and rental as a principal or accessory use and including sales in or from motorized vehicles, trailers, or wagons. [G1 Accessory, enclosed retail, rental, or service activity other than that allowed as a permitted use or conditional use within this section. [H] Shopping Center. [I] Animal Pet Clinics. [JJ Pet Hospitals. [K] Commercial storage contained entirely with a building. [L] Commercial planned unit development as regulated by Chapter 20 of this ordinance. [M] Consignment auction sales and/or auction sales. [N1 Outdoor go-kart tracks. [Ol Day -caro centers. [P] Auto body shop repair. [Q] Restaurants, cafes, tea rooms, taverns, and off -sale liquor located within 300 ft of a residential zone. $•Fr MARQUETTE BANK 295,4277 Page 2 Job 149 Auy-un rri +s:— ryas Notes from Tues. Aug. G. Planning & Zoning Meeting. City Stairs,ecommendation to the Board. 1. Deny creation of the new 13-3A district. • 18-3A further muddies the water with the existing (4) D Districts. • H -3A in this area does not conform to the city's comprehensive pian. • Sets a precedence for future Auto Related Requests. 2. Redone this area from PZM to B -L • B-2 allows all the same uses as a PZNI, but more dearly defines what is and is not allowed. • E Ttinates the ambiguity of the PZM. • Conforms with the surrounding zonings, and the city's comprehensive pian. 3. In effect; the above two actions would not allow the current Isst Lube /Detail Center request, or any future auto service/maim cnance type of facility in this area. Thu would then comply with the city's overan comprehensive plan. APIA OL A44A �.w► lGt/L e+GNR�, �lcr 0,../ot G4tN"`w' dG'4rrs"hJ`'"'l / ? S to,•t.n .eQw�%.,aM. 4Kvr �e+a A -",t4+ 15, 7( 7.-e.6 e6 To: JcIfO'Neill From: Dan and Linda Miclkc Date: Aug S. 19% RE: A. Creation of a new B -3A (Neighborhood Automotive Related Use District) B. Rezoning of the PZM district located East of the municipal waste Water treatment plant and North of Co. Rd 75 to a B -3A or B-3. C. Granting a conditional use permit for a fast lube/detail center in a new B -3A. or B-3 district. Position: All three of the above requests should be denied for the following reasons: A. Major decisions regarding tra0ic now through the city on E. Broadwm•Mwy. 75, and its impact on future roads, frontage roads, setbacks, ctc. should be made first, before any rezoning takes place. B. Authors of the proposed B -3A zone• by virtue of their own description. (Neighborhood Automotive Related Use District) recognize this area as a neighborhood, and net a commercial district. C. Fast Lubes and their RB's. (related businesses) such as Exhaust Pro's, Midas Brakes. Tires Plus. cmc.. are p_o_t neighborhood busies. They are commercial district businesses, and are found in commercial digdm in every other city. D. An ordinance allowing a Fast LubdRB's in this area of the city sets a precedence and would likely lead to a full scale Auto Mall with no legal way to deny it. All the auto rcWed franchises have waiting lobbies and attempt to operate on the same philosophy of"in and out", or "%-mile you wait" service. E. Rezoning to B -3A or BJ, wa dd lead to the development of two commercial business districts in town. East side vs. Downtownfliwy. 25 corridor. Monticello businesses have struggled with the business district transition from Downtouvn to Huy. 25 corridor, why start the process all over again?? F. Rezoning of this area to B -3A or 13-3 would increase commercial traffic on Broadway. (Trucks ctc.) G. Creates a business environment contradictory to the goals of the city's comprehensive plan, and its unbiased planners, H. This request bem:flts a special Interest group• and is pg in the best interest of the city's long tent goals and planned development. This property can be developed profitably within the current zoning guidelines. 1. The current PZM zoning is very appropriate for the arca allowing des• pre, oflioc buildings, dental clinic. ctc. B-2 would remoet the ambiguity of a PZM. Both PZM amt 0.2 zones conform to the cm's comprehensive plan, and existing zones around this site. J. How mum• 0 zone categories does the city want? We currently have 4, (B 1 • B2, B3 and 134). New Request a 13-3A - Neighborhood Auto Related District What's Nen - B-30 - Neighborhood Food Related DistriU7771 B -3C - Neighborhood F-werrammenr Related Districi 771 I ask the city oll vials and gmtming bogies to stand by their comprehensive plan, Do nes allow fragnentation of the commercial business district, and tend a clear message that in Monticello you reed to plan your land purchases and business ideas around the comprehensive plan and the zoning requirements. The city las a good overall plan. Get the E. Broadway/Hwy. 75, and 25 sash tmfBc problems solved. Our city o0lcials and governing bodies mead strong backs, and tough hides to resist special interests, and then Monticello las the potential to be a model city... seting all its constituents well. &" adei mono /las - 9J Ns aimme wjr"e. telase to SO at arae at all - Do aa aeyarcat ?Xa eled4'a eswaseteW 6wz'au Miti4ee - V" ,2 ' wx 4F•NJV Fast Lubes and their RB's, (related businesses), such as Exhaust Pro's, Midas Brakes. Tires Plus, etc. with their "in and out"/"while you wait" ohilosmIlies. are Not Neiehborhood Businesses. • A convenience store with gas and a car wash is a neighborhood business. Most people get gas, pick up a loaf of bread, grab a newspaper, or wash their car weekly. • Fast LubeslRB's are g21 neighborhood businesses. People do not change their oil, replace a belt, have their radiator flushed, replace exhaust, brakes, or tires weekly. • To most people, gas is gas, bread is bread, a touch free car wash is a touch free car wash, and they will not drive across town for this. They will frequent the most convenient locations. Convenience stores are appropriate for neighborhood areas. • When it comes to automobile maintenance or service, which is what a fast lube/RB is, it is a different issue. These are destination businesses. Because these services are not required weekly, people will drive across town, right past the most convenient fast lube/RB, to have their vehicle serviced at a business where they feel the most confident in the service rendered. • Fast LubesfRB's cannot survive on neighborhood business alone, they must pull in from large areas, resulting in increased traffic in the neighborhood. • Across the state, convenience stores with gas and car wash are frequently found on the fringes or neighborhood developments, but fast lubes/RB's are not allowed. Fast lubm"'s and their "in and out"P'while you wait" philosophies, are designated to commercial areas. Why should Monticello develop differentlyr" Fast Lube Industry St. Cloud 87,913 people 3 fast lubes Mankato 48,177 people 2 fast lubes Monticello 14,000 people 1 under construction 2" proposed • From a business perspective it is questionable whether Monticello is big enough to support I, let alone 2 fast lubes. There is a reason why one of the major fast lube chains is not already here. • The Point ; If two were to exist in Monticello, both would be jared to offer additional services to try to cash flow. How is the city going to monitor these services and assure their conformity with the city's zoning ordinancesM? to .27 Council Agenda • 8/12/96 9. Co sideration of men meat to the Montioe to 2on1nQ Cls lnnrsee re rulsitina t_he number. Rize- and use of necessozy buildings in residential 2nin nQiad trict& ApplirmnJ6 Planning Cornmessiom (J.O.) A RRFRRPMCE AND BACKGROUND: Please see the attached planning report from Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. On August 6, 1996, the Planning Commission held a second discussion on regulating accessory structures and recommended the ordinance language outlined in (Exhibit D) in the attached report. Please see the report for additional detail. B_ ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to adopt an ordinance amendment addressing accessory buildings, uses, and equipment as outlined in (Exhibit D), based on the findings contained within the Planner's Report. 2. Motion to adopt ordinance amendments B or C. 3. Motion to deny or table adoption of ordinance amendment addressing accessory buildings. C_ STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Stall recommends Alternative ql. D_ SLiPPORTLNG DATA: Planner's reports and exhibits. N o rt h w e s t As s o i s to d C_SLn s u l tents. Inc. MEMORANDUM T0- Monticello Planning Commission Jeff O'Neill FROM: Stephen Grittman DATE: August 1, 19% RE= Monticello - Accessory Buildings on Small Lots FILE NO: 191.06 96.02 , Consideration of Amending the Zoning Ordinance by establishing lintlts for detached accessory buildings and garages. Attached to this report Is the information submitted for ftte July Planning Commission meeting discussing options for the Citys regulation of aecessroy bulldho. In that material, staff offered a number of alternatives to clarifying the CiVe regulations for detached accessory buildings on small resldontial lots. Oisoussion at that meeting, and between staff members, has resulted In the attached alternative. This option (Exhibit D) would retato the sae of detached accessory buildings to the site of the rear yard (10% as suggested in the previous draft ordinance Edtbit C) but drop the relatlon to the size of the pHndpal building. The building official has suggested thad this would be curnbersome to administer, oven though it may be a reasonable measurement of the building's status as accessory to the principal use. Based on the Commission's discussion and other action taken with previous applications, this eltemative also sets a threshhold of 400 square feet which all single and two family residential dwellings would bo entitle to, regardless of building or lot size. RUG -02-1996 0807 NRC 612 595 9837 P. 0:3/17 B. ALTERNA t1YE ACTIONS: 1. Approve an Ordinance amendment (Exhibit B) which clarilies the Citys current language as applying exclusively to detached accessory buildings, and keeps the current size restrictions (1,000 square feet). 2. Approve an Ordinance amendment (Exhibit C) which restricts the amount of accessory building by relating the size to the size of the rear yard and the size of the principal building. 3. Approve an Ordinance amendment (Exhibit D) which restricts the amount of accessory building by relating the size to the stze of the rear yard, and specHtcaly permits all single and two family dwellings to have an accessory budding of at least 400 square feet 4. Take no action and leave the Ordinance as currently written Staff believes that Altemative 4 Is Inappropriate due to the confusion over its application to attached garages. Therefore, one of the that three alternatives should be chosen, or other language its developed reflecting the City's concerns In this area. As noted prevlousty, Exhibit C relates the size of the accessory building to both the lot and the house. Planning staff believes that the impact of an accessory building is measured by its rchtionship to these conditions. However, Building department staff notes that tying the size of the accessory budding to the house size would be cumbersome to administer, and recommends alternative 3. We have included all Information from the previous packet to assist in the review of this issue. June 27 Staff Report Exhibit A - current Ordinance language Exhibit B- Draft Ordinance clarifying c urent policy Exhibit C - Draft Ordinance relating to size of IN onkel slzo of house Exhibit D - Draft Ordinance relating to slze of lot with minimum size of 400 square feet Roj- ��;; AUG -02-19% 08:07 NAC b 1,d i» 7w r 1. rwl 1 rN Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. C C O IMMUNI T V PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RES E ARC N MEMORANDUM TO: Monticello Planning Commission FROM: Bob ICIrmislStephen Grittman DATE: 27 June 1996 RE: Monticello - Zoning Ordinance - Accessory Building Requirements FILE NO: 191.06 - 96.02 1. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND This memorandum is intended to evaluate the adequacy of the City s existing accessory building requirements. Of specific Issue Is the adequacy of such requirements as they apply to lots less than 10,000 square feet in area on which a moratorium currently exits. ISSUES Existing Regulation AppllcablUtty Policy. In review of the City's existing accessory building regulations (see Exhibit A), it is unclear whether maximum area requirements are to include (or exclude) attached garages. Pest City policy has been to exempt attached garages from the maximum area requirements stipulated in the ordinance. Thus, the listed area requirements apply only to detached accessory structures. Regardless of whethor any changes of "substance' are proposed, it is recommended that the ordinance be revised to clarify City policy. Building Area Requirements. Currently, private garages are Illsted as permitted accessory uses in the R-1 and R-2 Districts. Garage area is limited to 1,000 square feet and may not occupy more than 25% of the roar yard. Such requiremoms raise concern over whether an additional detached double garage is an appropflate use of land in association with small single family or twinhome Iota, particularly if many such owners take advantage of the current standards. If taken full advantage of, the rear yards of several 40 foot wide twinhome lots may appear cluttered and over built. 5775 WayZato Blvd.- Suite 555 - St. Louis Palk. MN 55416 - (612) 595-0636-FFax. 595.9837 PLG -02'19% 08:08 4X 612 595 9837 P.05i17 Regulation Alternatives If the City wishes to control this potential Intensity of use, the following aftemative approaches should be considered: Option 1 • Retain Existing Regulations. An initial option to be considered would be to simply retain the existing accessory building requirements attached as Exhibit A. If such option is desired, it is recommended that the existing ordinance language be amended to clarify City policy in terms of applicability. As noted previously, it has been past City practice to apply such standards only to detached accessory buildings. Attached as Exhibit 8 is a draft Zoning Ordinance amendment which simply clarifies the applicability of the current standards and provides specific definition of the terms'accessory building' and 'accessory use'. The following is a listing of pros and cons associated wish retaining the City's existing standards: Pros Cons Ease in administrative handling and citizen understanding. May result in scale problems as no relationship to open space or principal building size is required. Option 2 • Institute a maxdmurn lot (building) coverage requirenranL A second option would be to impose a maximum lot coverage requirement. For a minimum twinhome lot (40 feet by 150 feet), a 1,200 square foot unit and a typical attached double garage would comprise about 28 percent lot coverage. With a 30 percent maximum, a tool shed sized building would be the only extra lot coverage possible. With a 35 percent maximum, a double garage would be possible. The 30 percent maximum would permit an additional single car garage. The following Is a listing of pros and cons associated with this option: Pros Would ensure proportionate retention of open space on all lots. May encourage Interior storage (depending upon lot coverage percentage) Cons • Principal building additions could be discouraged by such means of regulation. • Administrative review of building coverage Is necessary. • Larger principal dwelling footprints may prohibit construction of justified accessory storage space. • May discourage interior storage (depending on percentage). • Inequitable accessory storage allowances. Option 3 -Relate, ma:imurn accessory struchoe area to a pencentage o f the principal structure area. A second option would be to limit garage and accessory structure square footage to a percentage of the principal structure. For instance, a tome of 1,200 square feet could have a detached double garage with an accessory building threshold of 35%. A twWh)me would have to contain at least 1,600 square feet to qualify for the equivalent of an additional detached three car garage at the 35% ratio. In calculating the area of the principal structure• it is recommended that such calculation , appy to livable floor area (as currently defined within the ordinance) so as not to penalize homes which have multiple stones. The following is a listing of pros and cons associated with this option: Pros • Such regulation would establish a fired relationship between dwelling unit living area and accossory storage space. • A desirable building scale may be maintained. • May encourage Interior storage (depending on lot coverage percentage). Cons • Question exists as to whether sal standards should apply to building footprint area or total finished square footage. • Administrative calculation of floor eroaa necessary for all requests. 3 ALC -W-19% 08: 08 NRC 612 595 9837 N.dell'I - • Larger principal building areas and accessory storage areas would result in loss of open space. Option 4 - Reduce erdsUng rear yard coverage percentage. A fourth option is to utilize the same approach being used currently, but reduce the size thresholds. On atypical• twinhome lot, the rear yard might be expected to be from 2,000 to 2,500 square feet in area The current regulation of 25% would allow an accessory building of 500 to 625 square feet in this rear yard, a two and one-half to three car garage sized building. Reducing the rear yard lot coverage could reduce the impact of accessory structures in twinhome areas. A maximum of 10% rear yard coverage would limit the twinhome lot to an accessory building the size of a single car garage. The following is a listing of pros and cons associated with this option: Pros • Insures consistent amount of open space in rear lot areas. • Accessory building size allowance not related to principal building size. Cons • Administrative calculation of rear yard area necessary. • Accessory building size allowance not related to principal building size. • May result in increased outdoor storage. Option 5 • Prohibit detached accessory etnicturse upon small lots. Finally, the City could choose to eliminate detached accessory structures upon small lots (i.e., -10,000 sq.fL). Many contemporary twinhome developments may already do so with private covenants. The following Is a listing of pros and cons associated with this option: Pros • Would preserve rear yard open space. • No administrative review. 4 1 RUG -02-1596 0208 Wic 612 595 9837 P.OS/ 17 Cons Equitable treatment of all twlnhome residents. May not adequately respond to resident needs. May discourage further property investment May not sufficiently acknowledge existence of single family detached dwellings on small lots. Large Lot Applicability While the focus of this memorandum is an accessory storage requirements as they apply to small lots, several issues raised may hold applicability to the City's larger single family residential lots as well. The concept of establishing a reasonable relationship between accessory building size and lot/principal dwelling size may have applicability to all single family residential lots within the City. In this regard, the City may wish to apply such regulation to all residential zoning districts. While a simple clarification of the existing ordinance language would have no impact upon existing accessory building allowances, an amendment such as that attached as Exhibit C would alter the amount of allowable accessory building space. For example, a home with 2,000 square foot of livable area on a 12,000 square foot lot could potentially have e detached accessory structure of 700 square f©ot (35% of livable area), provided such structure area would not campy more than 10% of the rear yard area. With a typical rear yard area of 5,600 square feel, however, it can be anticipated that a maximum accessory building size on a typical R-1 District (12,000 square foot) lot would be 560 square feet B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS. Adoption of amendments to the accessory building and use section of the Zoning Ordinance which clarify the Ordinance language and continue pest City practice of permitting a detached accessory building of up to 1,000 square feet on residential lots, in addition to existing, attached garages. This Altamative is shown as the proposed Ordinance in attached Exhibit B. Adoption of amendments to the accessory building and use section of the Zoning Ordinm= which plecs restrictions on tho amount of detached accessory strucwre which may be placed on rosidontial lots, In proportion to both the size of the lot, and the size of the principal structure. This Alternative is shown as the proposed Ordinance in attached Exhibit C. RJG-02-1996 eB:09 NRC 612 545 9837 P. 09/17 3. Tabling of action on any amendments, subject to other Issues and policies identified by the City or public. If one of the two proposed Ordinances do not adequately address the issues and objectives of the City, alternative language should be discussed for future consideration. Such Issues may include a change in the City's position on whether both detached accessory structures and attached accessory uses (such as attached garages) should be subject to these regulations. Past City practice, and the proposed Ordinances, do not include attached garages in the calculations. If the City believes that some amount of accessory building should be allowed on small lots, we would recommend a combination of Option 3 and Option 4. This relates the size of the accessory building to both the principal building and the lot, which would help to keep the buil in scale with its neigt>borhood. By applying the combined test of no more than 35% of livable area of the princlpal building or 10% of the rear yard, whichever Is less, a home owner would have the opportunity to construct a limited amount of accessory building, but should not be able to overwhelm the property. A draft Zoning Ordinance amendment reflecting such recommendation is attached as Exhibit C. Attached for reference: Exhibit A - Existing Ordinance Regulations Exhibit B - Draft Amendment - Clarification of Existing Regulations Exhibit C - Draft Amendment - Recommended Regulations :. 1-Z ID) ru measurements of such area or width are within seventy-five (75) percent of the requirements of this ordinance. 4. Except in the case of planned unit development as provided for in Chapter 20 of this ordinance, not more than one (1) principal building shall be located on a lot. The words "principal building" shall be given their common, ordinary meaning; in case of doubt or on any question or interpretation, the decision of the Building Inspector shall be final , subject to the right of appeal to the Planning Commission and City Council. 5. On a through lot (a lot fronting on two (2) parallel streets), both street lines shall be front lot linea of applying the yard and parking regulations of this ordinance. ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, USES, AND EQUIPMENT: 1. An accessory building shell be considered an integral part of the principal building if it is connected to the principal building either directly or by an enclosed passageway. 2. No accessory building shall be erected or located within any required yard other than the rear yard.., 3. Accessory buildings and garages shall not exceed fifteen (15) feet in height and shall be ton (10) feet or more from all side lot lines of adjoining lots, five (5) feet or more from'the rear lot line, shall be ten (10) feet or more from any other building or structure -on the same lot, and shall not be located within a utility easement. 4. No accessory building or garage shall occupy more than twenty-five (25) percent of a rear yard, nor' exceed one thousand (1,000) square feet of floor area. 5. No permit shall be Issued for the construction of more than one (1) private accessory structure for each dwelling. Each applicant for a buildinq pormi t to construct any dwellings shall be requi sod to provido off-street parking space for at least ono (1) automobile per family to be housed in addit ion to any garage space to be used. (7/22/91, #211) MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE f(q M T A 9' ri41-rJG-1770 k1d�U7 I've '__ ___ �_• •• 6. No accessory uses or equipment such as air conditioning cooling structures or condensers which generate noise may be located in a side yard except for side yards abutting streets where equipment is fully screened from view. (E) DRAINAGE PLANS: In the case of all apartment, business, and industrial developments, a minimum of 3 sets of drainage plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review, and the final :drainage plans shall be subject to written approval. All dwellings and commercial and industrial buildings shall be constructed such that the ground elevation at the building site will be a minimum of twelve (12) inches above finished street elevation at the building access point. The exact elevation will be determined by the Building Inspector. All garages and parking facilities shall be situated such that there will be direct and positive drainage to the street access at finished grade elevation. All elevations shall be established prior to. issuance of a building permit. Occupancy shall not be granted until the builder certifies conformance with the grading plan for the lot. The developer shall have a registered land surveyor or engineer certify that the development has been rough graded to' within tolerance limits according to the grading plan. [F] GENERAL FENCING, SCREENING, AND LANDSCAPING: 1. No fence shall oxceod six (6) feet in height within a required yard; and in the case of grade separation ouch as the division of properties by a retaining wall, the height shall be determined on the basis of measurement from the average point between the highest and lowest grade. 2. No fenco, structure, planting, trees, or shrubs shall be permitted within the visibility area of any corner formed by property lines intersecting with a railway sight -of -way. (The visibility area referred to above shall be in the form of a triangle with two sides formed by the property linos mentioned and the third side formed by a straight line connecting the two (2) twenty-fivo (23) foot points on both *idea of the corner.) "ONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3/6 i PUG -02-1996 0809 �Jpc 612 595 9837 P.12/17 DRAFT- DRAFT - DRAFT e CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 96 -— �CVU AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 OF THE MONTICELLO CITY CODE (THE ZONING ORDINANCE) ADDRESSING ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, USES AND EQUIPMENT. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN: Sectim 1. Title 10, Section 2-2 of the Monticello City Code (DeMitions) Is hereby amended to delete the following: (AA) Access= Building or Use: A subordinate building or use which is located on the same lot on which the main building or use is situated and which is reasonably, necessary and incidental to the conduct of the primary use of such building or main use. Swdw 2 Title 10, Section 2-2 of the Monticello City Code (Definitions) is hereby amended to add the following: (AA) Y"13uitdlha ;iA..;11Orfiptf p[:.lite't0r?P:¢�4?!�Otor.;;a;'d,0teCihed principal blJQdlft�;Of;B Q9t8Gli8d 6ffEJCtl1r8.Ati;ihe,:5�1t9 �OE11111}CI1`IS 08811 iOf art accessory. Use. (AJ.11) A0008ffiILY''tlSA': ••A'• IIEQ'��(;:8.,:leri¢'•;`Qt+;�f`-a;;;l�thili' �Or pO�ilbtt; ti)ereOf customarily Inc1dartal wd 4ubo.r41n@ @ mitNe _0uWm:8fld6lQCatpd on,tt�e ssMme,lot witty such' pi iru3paWse Soction & Title 10, Section 32.D of the Monticello City Code (Accessory Building Requirements) is hereby amended to read as follows: (D) ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, USES, AND EQUIPMENT: An accossory building shall be considered an Integral part of the principal building If it is connected to the prbm#W building either directly or by an enclosed passageway. EXHIBIT B q•K AW -02-1996 08:10 NRC 612 595 9817 P.13/17 2. No detached accessory buk" shall be erected or bcated within any requhW yard other than the rear yard. 3. Detpdwd accessory buildings shall not exceed fifteen (15) feet in height and shall be ten (10) fest or more from all side lot lines of aclointng lots, five (5) feet or more from the rear lot One. shall be ten (10) feet or more from any other building or structure on the same lot, and shall not be located within a utility easement. 4. No .dganhed accessory building shall occupy more than twenty-five (25) percent of the rear yard, nor exceed one thousand (1,000) square feet of floor area. S. No permit shall be issued for the construction of more than one (1) Ae1act�W accessory structure for each dwelling. Each applkmM for e budding permit to construct any dwellings shall be required to provide off-street parking space for at least one (1) automobile per family to be housed in addition to any garage space to be used. 6. No accessory uses or equipment such as air conditioning coating structures or condensers which generate noise may be located in e side yard except for side yards abutting streets where equipment is fully screened from view. SaMon 0. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon Its passage and publication. ADOPTED by the Mont Wb City Coundl, Unix _ day of 19%. CITY OF MONTICELLO By: Brad Fyle, Mayor ATTEST: By: Ayes: Rick WoUsteller, Administrator Nays: 2 kG-02-1996 08:10 ripz DRAFT- DRAFT - DRAFT CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 96 - _- 612 595 9877 P. 14,17 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 OF THE MONTICELLO CITY CODE (THE ZONING ORDINANCE) ADDRESSING ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, USES AND EQUIPMENT. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN: Section 1. Title 10. Section 2-2 of the Monticello City Code (Definitions) is hereby amended to delete the following: (AA) Accessory Building or Use: A subordinate bWiding or use which is located on the same lot on which the main building Or use Is Situated and which is reasonably necessary and incidental to the conduct of the primary use of such building or main use. Socdw I Title 10. Section 2-2 of the Monticello City Code (Definitions) is hereby amended to add the following: (fel &==a•Buildina A,poraot>•:oTthe:�Prin pa> ci!ua>nvror. adetacsleq principal• buildin,i 0►:.0 ggtaereQ,etct (clure;orE lite, "",Wt •"'101;la used for an acces$ory••449: (FW1:), Aceesae►w Usn?;.• j4i:use'.W'e ^tQnd a.cgf s: pulk Ab."ion•Ahar"ll *Womanlj,incidetttal'. and ;subctdirlatetir.Elte prtne)pal'tiWWU!0 aft logated on the sethelbt'wlth'such'priilclpD4 ilk; Section 3. Title 10. Section 3-2.D of the Monticello City Code (Accessory Building Requirements) is hereby amended to read as follows: (0) ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, USES. ANO EQUIPMENT: An accessory building shall be considered an integral part of the principal building d it is connected to the principal building eillw directly or by an enclosed pasugewsy, EXHIBIT C 9 ►N� PUG -02-1956 0e:10 NX 612 595 9e37 P. 15z17 2. No detached- accessory building shag be erected or located within any required yard other than the rear yard. 3. Detached accessory buildings shall not exceed fifteen (15) feet In height and shall be ton (10) feet or more from all side lot lines of adjoining tots, five (5) feet or more from the raw lot line, shall be ten (10) feet or more from any other bUkft or structure on the same lot and shall not be located within a utility easement. 4. N6 OW pcbedLqccesso bpkO§�sWAX60ed,ftidy- ve,,(35),pe(cer'd ",?e.ar. yard,.Wh�Kerls West. 5. No permit shall be issued for the construction of more than one (1) detacW accessory structure for each dwelling. Each applicant for a'6uiiding permit to construct any dwellings shall be required to provIde, off-street parking space for at least one (1) automobile per family to be housed in addition to any garage space to be used. 6. No accessory uses or equipment such as air conditioning cooling structures or condensers which generate noise may be located In a side yard except for side yards abutting streets where equipment Is fully s=oned from view. Section 4. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and publication. ADOPTED by the MonfioRlb City Council. this — day of INS. CITY OF MONTICELLO By: Brad Fyle, Mayor ATTEST: By: Ayes: Rick Wolfateller, Administrator Nap: 2 AW -U-1996 08:11 NAC DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE N0.88 - 612 595 9637 P. 16/17 yb C7 DeL AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 OF THE MONTICELLO CITY CODE (THE ZONING ORDINANCE) ADDRESSING ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, USES AND EQUIPMENT. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN: Section 1. TSIs 10, Section 2-2 of the Monticello City Code (Definitions) is hereby amended to delete the folbwb q (AA) Accessory Building or Use: A subordinate building or use which is located on the same lot on which the main building or use is situated and which is reasonably necessary and incidental to the conduct of the primary use of such building or main use. Section 2. Idle 10, Section 2.2 of the Monticello City Code (Definitions) is hereby amended to add the following: (AA) A,xOaa�Bnitatnar;;i.A�:pertlc�.a�1t1�;�prpndpaftb�ditlfl�i•a�,:,a:'del8d�ed pr!'►pipo buGr)(n9'ota taCAe�st<► +te;on;,Ehe s(imb tohwrUch =laUi(eidfor art atceskrayuse: (AA7) AS�StOC.i:'A;;oF, a :.°Wer bf':&'=bul6dut8fiD'• M tommW Incidental ,'att AjDo*Ate_!?•ft Pr0cg39 tiyildinp 1d bc8ted on;the.sarhe'lot o suet pgnC4. 4,ttst?: Section & Title 10, Section n of the Monticello City Code (Accessory Building Requiremeft) Is horeby amended to read as follows: (D) ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, USES, AND EQUIPMENT: An accessory building " be considered an Integral parr of the principal building H it Is contacted to the principal building oIUW directly or by an enclosed passageway. EXHIBIT D pax; -et -ire W:44 i+w 2 No deWelpd accessory building shall be erected or located within any required yard other than the rear yard. 3. Dotgch accessory buildings shall not exceed fifteen (15) feet in height and shall be ten (10) feet or more from all aide lot lines of e4obvV lots, five (5) feet or more from the rear lot line, shall be ten (10) feet or more from any other burg or structure on the same lot, and shall not be located within a utility easement. 4. No 00tACfk90; aQtyi livIAW NCO"c1.9).p_qfcel'11:01.She !W:l!s!?, o!(',sQlmrattrftooe.fwllairelr�t9�'less: No�ryidtister>difietltig aause�;eveti►:sF�ie of �two';T�rnit�;i%elung_shail be.peim�ed.t0 oar5ffuet'9 diddled �'swct4re; orup to 49P ggu�re�teet; 5. No permit shall be issued for the construction of more then one (1) d@t�11�!t# accessory structure for each dwelling. Each applicant for a� building permit to construct any dwellings shall be required to provide off-street parking space for at least one (1) automobile per family to be housed in addition to any garage space to be used. 6. No accessory uses or equipment such as air conditioning cooling shm ures or conderums which generate noise may be located in a side yard except for Bide yards abutting streets where equipment is fully screened from view. Section 4. This Ordinance shall become eBectNe Immodletely upon its passage and publication. ADOPTED by the MorWoello City Council, this _ day of 1988. CITY OF MONTICELLO By: Brad Fyle. Mayor ATTEST: By: Ayes: Rick Wotfsteller, Administrator Nays: 9,0 `r blit'Pali ACCESSORY BUILDING AREAISIZE ILLUSTRATION Typical Rear Yard Area (80X70) 70' SCALE: V 0 30' Minimum Rear Yard Area (8030) 10' 30' 1 ~ 1 1 ; 1 � 80, FRONT Council Agenda - 8/12/96 10. Consideration of app vino expansion of liquor Heen_se at JP'e Annex to enelude an outdoor seatingare - (R.W.) A REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Mr. Rob Hoffman, owner of the JP's Annex Restaurant and Bar in the Hillside Partners Mall, would like to expand his restaurant and bar business to an outdoor seating area at the rear of his facility. The proposed expansion would utilize six parking spaces at the rear of the building. Two issues need to be addressed in regards to this request, one being a modification of the on - sale liquor license to include an outdoor seating area and the second issue concerns the loss of six additional parking spaces from a facility that already is providing less than required. As you may recall, the Hillside Partnership did not provide enough parking spaces to accomodate a restaurant and bar within the shopping center, and spaces were only provided assuming that all occupants would be retail in nature. When JP's Annex was allowed to locate in the mall, the conditional use permit which allowed the expansion of the restaurant required that the remaining 9,100 square feet of available space in the mall be left vacant in order to maintain sufficient parking for the restaurant and other current uses at this site. Last November, Mr. Vaughn Veit, owner of the mall, received approval to use a portion of the property adjacent to the mall for future parking lot expansion that would accomodate 66 additional parking spaces to allow full use of the shopping mall. The back portion of the Lauring Hillside Terrace lot was required to be split and added to the Sixth Street Annex Mall property. The developer was required to present a site plan indicating how all the 66 spaces would be laid out prior to the city granting any occupancy permit for the vacant retail space still available. The developer did not have to install the parking area prior to renting out the balance of the shopping center. However, a financial guarantee and associated agreement needed to be established that would allow the parking lot to be installed at the full discretion of the Planning Commission when it was needed. With JP's Annex now requesting to utilize six of the current parking spaces for outdoor seating, the Council may want to consider requiring that a final site plan and guarantee be supplied by the mall owner prior to permission being granted for the outdoor seating. I believe the developer is willing to meet the conditions of the November 1996 council action although all guarantees and agreements have not yet been finalized. It is suggested if a permanent deck or attachment to the mall is created, whereby the parking 12 Council Agenda - 8/12196 spaces are permanently lost in the future, the mall should be required to obtain amendment to their conditional use permit. Assuming that Mr. Veit does provide a guarantee for the installation of 56 additional spaces when needed, allowing JP's to utilize six spaces at the rear of the property for outdoor seating should not cause a problem at this time. Likewise, a simple acknowledgement that the liquor license is also available to the outdoor seating will meet the Liquor Control Divison requirements of state statutes. Council could allow the liquor license to apply to outdoor seating at JP's Annex and to grant approval to the use of six parking spaces for outdoor seating contingent upon the mall owner providing a financial guarantee and associated agreement concerning the future establishment of the 56 additional parking spaces. Council could deny the request for outdoor seating. C- STAFF F..O MF.NDATION; With the mall owner previously agreeing to provide up to 56 additional spaces when needed, the staff is comfortable with allowing JP's Annex to utilize six of the current spaces contingent upon the final agreement and guarantee being provided by the mall owner. The approval of the liquor license to include sales in the outdoor seating area is a technicality which the Council has authority to grant. IfJP's Annex in the future creates a permanent dock or permanently utilizes six parking spaces, the Planning Commission could again review the entire conditional use permit for the shopping center to determine if additional parking spaces above the 56 need to be supplied to offset the loss. At this time, staff recommends approval contingent upon the agreement and financial guarantee being supplied by the shopping center owners. None. Council Agenda - 8/12/96 11. Review of six_ month Liquor store finaneini reRort. (R.W.) A RPFFRENCE AND BA .K .RO fND: Liquor Store Manager, Joe Hartman, will be in attendance at the meeting to review the six month financial report for the period ending June 30th. In addition to reviewing the report, Joe would like to discuss the current part- time clerk and stock person salary structure and propose a revised salary schedule for these positions. In regards to the report, sales were up $76,900 for the first six months to a total of $832,000. This is approximately a 10% increase over the same period last year. The gross profits from these sales also increased by $25,900 which was a 16'% increase to a six month total of $199,021. In regards to the bottom line operating income, the income for the first six months is also up substantially over the same period last year to $100,036, a $35,000 increase over last year. In addition to a sales increase, the expenses were down approximately $10,000 over last year's first six months, primarily due to lower equipment maintenance/repair expense. Last year, we replaced the compressors in the walk-in coolers which amounted to over $7,000 in repair costs. Overall, Joe and I are very satisfied with the first six months' report including the sales increase and operating income to date. We see no reason why we will not again have record sales of approximately $1.6 to $1.7 million and expect our net income approaching $200,000. As part of our pay structure for part-time employees at the liquor store, we originally set up a four step system that would allow a part -tame liquor store clerk to receive a step increase based on the number of hours worked, each step being the equivalent of six months employment. Since many of the part, time employees work varying hours, some as little as 6.10 hours a week, it can take a long time for an individual to be eligible for any type of raise after they are hired. With our current 1996 pay scale beginning at $5.46 per hour, Jou Iwo been having a difficult time retaining good employees at this beginning pay scale. In today's market, most reliable individuals looking for part-time work can likely receive mora than this per hour, even working at fast food establishments. As a result, Joe has experienced a high turnover not only due to the low beginning pay but also due to the fact that it can take a year or longer before any type of increase is received. After reviewing the pay structure with Joe, we are suggesting that the Council approve two changes to the liquor store clerk pay schedule, one being Council Agenda - 8/12/96 increasing the beginning step from $5.46 to $5.75 an hour and also changing the number of hours required to receive a step increase from six months employment to three months employment. With this change, we may be able to attract and retain individual employees easier, and we would be able to reward them with an increase sooner if warranted. Accept the six month financial report as presented and authorize the part-time clerk beginning pay structure to be increased to $5.75 an hour from $5.46 an hour and lower the number of hours required before a second step increase to 520 hours of employment, or after six months, whichever comes first. 2. Accept the financial report as presented and do not authorize adjustments to the salary range at this time. Historically, the liquor store has always experienced a problem in retaining good part-time help. In many cases, it is our opinion that the better employees usually leave because of the pay structure and length of time it takes to received any type of an increase above the starting pay. With the recent action by the federal government to increase the minimum wage to $5.15 per hour, we are only slightly above this at our current $5.46 beginning pay, making it hard to attract decent employees for the limited part-time work. As a result, it is the opinion of both Joe and myself that the beginning salary should be increased by the 29¢ per hour and also lower the amount of hours needed to qualify for additional increases. This may not be the entire answer, but it should help in allowingJoe to attract better employees. From a financial standpoint, them shouldn't be any problem with the liquor store being able to afford adjustments to the salary schedule and, in the long run, I think we'd be better off being able to retain employees who turn out to be good workers. D. SUPPORTING DATA; Copy of six month financial report; Copy of current and proposed alternate part-time salary schedule for liquor store clerks. is 1996 YEAR-TO-DATE AMOUNT 228,717 167,512 61,205 26.8% 489,864 378,127 111,737 22.82 87,707 66,637 21,070 24.0% 24,241 16,273 ----7,969 32.9% 1,480 792 688 46.5% 832,010 629,341 3,648 199,021 23.92 0000000000 IIA 0 MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR GROSS PROFIT BY PRODUCT COMPARISON FOR THE YEAR ENDING JUN 30, 1995 AND 1996 1995 YEAR-TO-DATE AMOUNT Liquor Sales 207,156 Discounts Cost of Sales 153,703 GROSS PROFIT - LIQUOR 53,453 25.82 Beer Sales 448,698 Cost of Sales 351,407 GROSS PROFIT - BEER 97,291 21.7% Mine Sales 77,106 Cost of Sales 57,696 GROSS PROFIT - MINE 19,410 25.2% . ic Sales 20,528 Cost of Sales 14,404 GROSS PROFIT - MISC TAXABLE 6,124 29.8% Misc Non-taxable Sales 1,626 Cost of Sales 1,259 GROSS PROFIT - MIBC NON -TAXA 367 22.6% TOTAL SALES 755,114 TOTAL COST OF SALES 578,468 TOTAL FREIGHT COST 3,533 TOTAL GROSS PROFIT 173,113 0000300000 22.92 1996 YEAR-TO-DATE AMOUNT 228,717 167,512 61,205 26.8% 489,864 378,127 111,737 22.82 87,707 66,637 21,070 24.0% 24,241 16,273 ----7,969 32.9% 1,480 792 688 46.5% 832,010 629,341 3,648 199,021 23.92 0000000000 IIA 0 MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR REVENUE AND EXPENSES COMPARISON FOR THE YEAR ENDING JUN 30, 1995 AND 1996 1995 1996 YEAR-TO-DATE YEAR-TO-DATE AMOUNT AMOUNT SALES Liquor 207,156 228,717 Beer 448,698 489,864 Wine 77,106 87,707 other Merchandise 20,528 24,241 Misc Non -Taxable Sales 1,626 1,480 Discounts TOTAL SALES 755,114 832,010 COST OF GOODS SOLD (582,001) (632,989) GROSS PROFIT 273,113 22.9% aoaoaaeaaa 199,021 23.9% aaaoaanaa = rwNBRAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE Personal Services Salaries 55,591 52,929 PERA 2,426 2,367 FICA 4,418 4,184 Insurance 5,524 4,451 Unemployment Benefits 10 Severance Pay 2,669 1,892 TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES 70,628 9.4% 65,833 7.9% Suppl ies Office Supplies 644 457 General Operating Supplie 3,299 3,758 Other Supplies 73 138 TOTAL SUPPLIES 4,015 .52 4,353 .5% 118 MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR REVENUE AND EXPENSES COMPARISON FOR THE YEAR ENDING JUN 30, 1995 AND 1996 1995 1996 YEAR-TO-DATE YEAR-TO-DATE AMOUNT AMOUNT Other Services & Charges Professional Services 128 2,067 Maintenance Agreements Communication 1,078 1,287 Travel -Conference -Schools Advertising 2,308 3,010 Insurance 6,513 6,294 Utilities, Electric 5,444 5,386 Utilities, Heating 727 825 Utilities, Sewer & water 54 47 Maintenance, Equipment 7,547 413 Maintenance, Building 1,180 1,750 Maintenance, Other Depreciation --Acquired As 7,762 6,625 Other Misc Expenses 1,217 1,007 TOTAL OTHER SERVICES & CH 34,051 4.5% 26,800 3.5% TOTAL GENERAL & ADMIN EXPENS 108,694 ---------- 14.4% 98,985 ---------- 11.9% TOTAL OPERATING INCOME 64,419 000000000. 8.5% 100,036 000.009.0. 12.0% Other Income (Expense) Interest Income 9,640 4,586 Cash Long/Short 41 (86) Sale of Property TOTAL OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE) 9,681 1.3% 4,499 .51 NET INCOME (EXPENSE) 74,100 00000000.0 9.82 104,596 0000000090 12.6% Transfere In/Out ADJUSTED NET INCOME (EXPENSE 74,100 0000000000 9.8% 104,596 ■00..0000. 12.6% I I t Current Assets: Cash Change Fund Investments Accounts Receivable A/R — NSF Checks Inventory Prepaid Insurance TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR BALANCE SHEET 30Jun96 3,905.73 1,600.00 538,433.73 (298.53) 187,709.55 6,658.44 ------------ 738,008.92 Fixed Assets Land & Parking Lot Buildings Furniture b Equipment less: Accumulated Depreciation •AJTAL FIXED ABBSTS TOTAL ASSETS Liabilities Accounts Payable Due to EDA Fund galea Tex Payable Salaries Payable Accrued vacation/Sick Leave Other Accrued Expenses TOTAL LZABILITISB RETAINED EARNINGS TMAL LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE 46,591.03 199,285.65 74,324.45 (217,981.73) ------------ 102,219.40 ------------ 840,228.32 ncncaneenuea 2,682.08 100,000.00 3,702.04 2,181.49 16,672.02 695.26 125,932.69 714,295.43 840,228.32 00000868000M �I D CURRENT PART-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE Effective 3130196 —RAN'I;F ml 0.10 R's;� Liquor Storc("l-k 1 55.46 $6.33=$7.19 $8.05 PROPOSED PART-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE Effective 8/12/96 Sim A R?— . � I Hm 0--"ff Liquor Store Cl.,k Ss.7s dd 56 33 $779 $8.03 *or ftn- 6 fwnft� Arllich=LmUw&flw 116 PROPSCKDLWK4' 007198 ALTERNATE PART-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE Ytat2 Yt to .i Ytac4t $5.18 Effective 3/30196 1tar1 q RANGE 5145 � Ycv1 A I B I C I D I E I F I 2mi Hrs. 0.1040 Hrc 1040-2080 Hm, 2080-3120 Hm: over 3120 Y_ 7 y=1 Ym 4z Liquor Store Clerk $5.46 $6.33 $7.19 58.05 2mfi Hrc: 0,1040 Hrc 1�i120 Hm- 3120-s200 Hm: 6200-7280 Hm, 7280-9360 Hm over 97H1 Asst Dep Registwr $9.69 S10.18 $10.66 S11.15 S11.63 $ 12.12 wm Hrs. (W Hrc 1040.31M HMJ120.= Hm: 5200.7280 Hn• 7280-9361 Hm Y over 91 Receptionist 58.63 $9.06 59.49 $9.92 510.33 $10.78 2m Public Worts Asst 9201 W & S Coll Asst 44'.!24 Swiu= Pert Worker 9214 Winter P wk Asst SALSCHED Wert, 0810606 Y_ I Ytat2 Yt to .i Ytac4t $5.18 $5.73 $6.33 $6.90 1tar1 Y_ 2 Y=.3 YAC 4+ $3.46 $6.04 56.61 $7.19 Ycv1 ye- 7 Y=.1 Yen 4+ S3.75 $6.33 $6.90 $7.48 XCUA Y_ 7 y=1 Ym 4z $14)0 - - - 11 F Council Agenda - 8/12/96 P.: A REFFRENCF AND BA .K ,ROUND: The city recently received a notice that the 1996 membership dues for the Economic Development Partnership of Wright County are now due. The notice indicated the city's membership dues for 1996 would amount to $1,004.50, the same as last year's, but it should be noted that an additional $500 was contributed by the Monticello IDC making the total city contribution $1,504.50. The city originally approved membership in the develoment partnership in December, 1993, and paid the same membership fee of $1,500, out of which $500 was contributed by the IDC. The same was true in 1994 with the IDC contributing $500 and the city $1,004.50. Enclosed with your agenda is a copy of the 1995 paid member list showing the various communities and organizations that contributed to the partnership. As you will note, I believe almost all Wright County cities have become members in the past, and I am assuming that most will continue in 1996. The Economic Development Partnership recently met and prepared a five year plan which includes their goal of hiring a full-time executive director in the future. At the present membership fee rates, the partnership would not be able to fund a full-time director and do other economic development activities unless they either raise the membership fees substantially, increase their membership numbers, or receive funding from the county board. At the present time, Wright County has not contributed any funds towards the partnership and it appears that, if the organization is going to continue beyond the next year or so, a substantial increase in membership fees or influx of money from the county board will be necessary. Originally, when the city considered membership in this newly formed partnership, there were concerns that many of the activities proposed by the partnership would be duplications of efibrta and programs that the city currently has. With the city having its own economic development director, many of the programs being proposed by the county partnership already exist locally, including revolving loan programs, marketing efforts, and other consulting services we already provide. The basic reason for joining the partnership originally was that, although we have our own economic development department, what's good for the county will ultimately be good for the city of Monticello in encouraging tax base increases throughout the Council Agenda - 8/12196 county. I believe there were also concerns that the city of Monticello did not want to be labeled as the only community that did not belong to the county organization and thus felt obligated to participate even if we may not realize as many benefits from this organization as other smaller communities will. With the recent decision by the IDC to generally turn over their finances to the Chamber of Commerce, it appears unlikely that the IDC would have the funds or resources to continue contributing $500 towards the city's share of its membership fee. Although our invoice only shows a fee of $1,004.50, the Monticello IDC did get a separate statement for the additional $500 like they have contributed in the past. The question now becomes whether the city will want to make up the additional $500 that the IDC will no longer likely contribute or simply offer to pay the previous rate of $1,004.50. According to the partnership fee schedule, the city's contribution without the IDC participation would still be in the $1,500 range. Motion to approve continued membership in the Economic Development Partnership of Wright County at an approximate annual cost of $1,500 based on the current dues structure for 1996. Under this alternate, the city would continue membership but also agree to pick up the additional $500 that the IDC contributed in the past. Motion to approve membership contingent upon the city's contribution being the $1,004.50 as invoiced without picking up the IDC amount of $600. Motion to deny continued membership in the Economic Devolopment Partnership due to the duplication of efforts already being accomplished through our own economic development program and due to the fact that larger cities are required to contribute a larger brue amount than smaller communities which aro likely to benefit Moro. While the stuff believes that the programs being initiated by the partnership aro, without a doubt, duplicates of programs and activities we currently provide, we would hate to be the only community not participating in tho Council Agenda - 8/12/96 partnership for that reason. Based on the 1996 membership list, it appears that most communities are still members of the partnership, and we are not aware of any that are not planning on renewing in 1996. If the partnership's goals can provide assistance and attract new industries to Wright County, Monticello certainly stands to benefit as one of the top locations for new businesses to consider. Although it appears the membership fees do seem to be unequal in their application with larger communities being asked to contribute more than the smaller communities do on a per capita basis, its hard for the staff to recommend not participating in this organization for 1996. It is also assumed that if the partnership had realized that the IDC was technically disbanding its financial organization, the city would have probably received an invoice for the total estimated fee of $1,604.60. As a result, it is assumed that if the city is going to continue membership, you will be supporting alternative #1. List of 1996 membership; Five year plan of the partnership; Membership dues invoice. MEMORANDUM TO: 011ie Koropchak Monticello I.D.C. FROM: Phyllis Colley City of Otsego DATE: July 25, 1996 SUBJECT: Economic Development Partnership 1995 Paid Member List My review of the Partnership's bank deposit slips showed the following members paid dues in 1995. Northern States Power 52,300.00 Rockford State Bank 250.00 Lakedak Telephone 1,850.00 City of South Haven 119.40 City of Otsego 50.00 City of Howard Lake 500.00 City of Clearwater 159.10 Clearwater EDA 50.00 Citizens Bank of Waverly 250.00 Monticello Development f z or) 500.00 City of Monticello 1,004.50 City of Maple Lake 500.00 Clearwater Township 215.00 City of Albertville 500.00 City of Buffalo 1,685.50 City of Rockford 766.50 City of Annandale 500.00 Minnegasco 2,313.00 City of Hanover 178.60 Woodland Township 210.00 Frankfort Township 393.50 Security State Bank 500.00 City of Cokato 500,00 City of Montrose 5011.10 Wright Hennepin Electric 2.300.00 /�A The Partner FROM THE CHAIRMAN I An Exciting Year By Ned D. McUllan, firman, EDPwC During the first quarter of 1998, the Economic Development Partner- ship of Wright County has been busy on sev- eral different initiatives. The board of directors has been focusing on a number of key strate- gies and planning Is- sues for the year. One hurdle cleared early on was the establishing of an office In Monticello. The Partner- ship continues to concentrate on outreach to the com- munities In Wright County by providing valuable as- sistance. A note of thanks goes out to past director Garrison Hale from the City of Albenville for his dedicated ear. vice and guidance in the Partnership's formation in 1993. We also wish to welcome now directorsPhypie Cokely, representing the City of Otsogo, Seen Carroll, representing AT&T, and Tim Zipoy, repro - senting the Private Industry Council, Annandale. All of our board members are volunteers and contribute from a wide variety of Interests and backgrounds. Each brings with them special insight and resources to shape our board with a collaborative vision to guide the growth of Wright County. The Partnership's mission cont nuos to promote Wright County as a desirable place to live, work, or own a business. Our emphasis will focus on supporting economic development on a county -wide basis to enhance and Improve the quality of life. In early February, our Executive Committee held an intensive goal setting and strategic planning ses- sion to outline major objectives for 1998. Those objectives include: • Establish Finance, Marketing, Management, and Government Liaison Action Teams • Initiate county -wide community profiles • Establish regular outreach efforts to all communities • Revolving Loan Program administered by Central Minnesota Initiative Fund • Conduct a county -wide business expansion/ retention survey • Retain all existing members and grow membership base by adding new businesses, banks, etc. • Strengthen relationship wlth Ouad County Network • Seek financial support of the Partnership from Wright County Board • Continue to provide new resources to Partnership members • Produce a regular Newsletter for membership distribution If you have any questions about the Partnership and its services, please can 271.5168 or my office at 477.3078. /JLa NEWS Welcome New Board Member From AT&T AT&T, the nation's largest telecommunications pro- vider, has joined the Wright County Economic De- velopment Partnership by fining a board seat that was recently vacated. AT&T has a long -tens com- mlment to enhancing the quality of life in the com- munities in which its employees live and work. With 102 locations In Minnesota, AT&T is not only part of the community, but has invested millions of dollars in call switching centers and communication equipment across the state. That investment is trans- Idng into new emperymem opportunities for Min- nesotans. Sean Carroll, AT&T Sales Manager, said his con" mbnent to Wright County fits his compenys mis• abn to create'bordedew* communities so no mat. ter how rural or how urban the area is, economic development can flourish. Carroll also cited the Partnership's interest in technology, the Internet and specifically electronic commence as evidence of the organization's real economic development leader- ship potential. Partnership Utilizes CMIF Initiative Fund Invests in Wright County Ely KaNy GadIT'* Examiuve Dhoctor. CMIF The Control Minnesota Initiative Fund is pleased to be a partner with Wright County in promoting com- munity and economic development. The Initiative Fund is a regional foundation, based in Unto Falls, that focuses on strengthoning communities, faml• Ms. and the labor force. The Fund provides loans to businesses, grams to non -profits, and leadership training to community leaders. Over S16 million has been disbbuted in the 14 county region by the Initiative Fund since it began nearly a decade ago, including over $600,000 in Wright County. For example, the cities of Albertville and Waverly are currently participating in the Funds CommuPoty Partnership grants endVainvg program, focusing on community visioning and planning. A numbs rd businesses have received assbtance from the FUnQ Including VonRhden Manufacturing in Bul- fab, and Standard Iron in Monticello. . The Initiative Fund believes that local people are the best resource for Identifying and addressing com- munity needs. The Funds investments in the re- gion would not be nearly as effective without com- mitted local leaders woddng to link needs and re- sources. A great example of this leadership Is Judie Rose, Wright County Commissioner. who serves on the Initiative Funds Board of Directors. She pro- vides an important connection between the Wright County area and our foundation. For more Informs - ton about the Fund, call (320) 632-9255. Partnership Participates in Summit The Partnership was well represented at the OUAD COUNTY SUMMIT which was held April 29th. County Commisaionere from Bonton, Sherburne, Stearin and Wdght counties called the summit to discuss cooperetlon and reglonal needs. The Part- nership made a pnesentatlon to the bond members on the status of development In Wright County and related growth issues. The Partnership to one of four economic develop- ment organizations that participated In the summit. All four are members of the Quad C Aunty Network. which moots regularly to ensure cooporation and comrroication between the counties, /41C. Economic Development Partnership 2807 w county Road 75 of Wright County, Inc. Monticello. MN 55362 Phone. (612) 271-5166 A non-profit private/public partnership FAX • (612) 295-1421 Date: June 18, 1996 To: Economic Development Partnership From: Finance Committee Re: Five Year Plan The Finance Committee, consisting of Arnie Hendrickson, Phyllis Cokley and Susan Yergin, met on Friday, June 14, 1996. During that meeting the committee came up with a five year plan, actually 4 1/2 years extending to the year 2000 (Exhibit A), and a wage scale (Exhibit B) for the Executive Director position. The following is a synopsis of the finance committee's recommendations: For the remainder of 1996 the Executive Director should be hired as a full time employee. This position should be at a wage of $12.00 per hour. The person in this position would be a probationary employee until January of 1997, at which time a review would be done and a determination would be made whether or not to make that person a permanent employee. After that determination has been made the recommended wage scale would become effective along with an insurance package. The employee holding that position would be reviewed annually thereafter, unless the person in that position changes, at which time there would always be a six month probationary period followed by a review process. It is recommended that a personnel policy be implemented. • It has been recommended, through the five year plan, that the Executive Director receive a retirement plan in the year 1998. • It is recommended that a part time clerical position be established In the year 1998. • It is felt that a permanent office site be established and maintained for the Partnership. One that would house staff and be accessible to the public. This is scheduled to also take place during 1998. • The Five Year Plan has been drafted beginning with July 1, 1996 and goes through the year 2000. This plan identifies expenses that the Partnership can anticipate over the next years to keep operating and providing the services which it was established to provide. The Finance Committee feels that without the participation and support of the Wright County Board that the Partnership will not be able to continue past the year 1997. The dues structure will need to be reviewed on an annual basis, and we need to be very aggressive in pursuing membero Into the Partnership. EXHIBIT A EMMOMIC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP OF WRIGHT COUNTY, INC. ' FIVE YEAR PLAN DRSMIPPION 1998 s 1997 1998 1999 2000 Executive Director t 22,000 30,000 32,400 35,000 37,800 Payroll withholdings 920 2,295 2,480 2,680 2,895 Insurance Package 0 2,400 2,475 2,550 2,625 Retirement Plan 0 0 1,000 1,100 1,200 Vehicle Allowance H 930 1,850 1,920 1,980 2,040 Clerical Mages see 0 0 4,160 8,840 9,380 Payroll withholdings 0 0 320 680 720 Office Space 0 0 3,000 6,600 7,200 Office Furnishings 0 0 3,500 0 0 Computer 0 3,000 3,000 0 0 Photo Copier 0 0 1,200 1,200 1,200 Pager/Cellular Phone 0 0 1,200 1,200 1,200 Postage S00 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,500 Printing 500 1,200 1,300 1,500 2,000 Filing Fees S00 25 25 25 25 Dues/Memberships 0 500 550 600 650 Meeting Expenses 400 800 850 11000 1,200 Senisars/Conferences 200 750 800 11000 1,200 Miscellaneous 0 180 220 345 385 a 1996 is a six month projected budget. July lot - December 31st, all other years run January let through December 31st. sa Vehicle Allowance is based on the allowance allowed by the IBS, which currently is at 31 cents per mile, an Inflation factor has been used. ass Clerical Mages are as follows: 1998 - 10 Ars/week I i8/hr; 1999 - 20 hrs/week $8.50/hr; and 2000 - 20 hrs/week 0 $9/hr. 12.6' t I MINT B ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP OF WRIGHT COUNTY, INC. WAGE SCALE - EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Effective January 1, 1997 Salary Range $30,000 to $42,500 annually * This is a ten (10) step scale, with increases in increments of approximately 4 percent. Sten l $30,000 Sten 2 $31,200 Sten 3 $32,400 Step 4 $33,700 Step 5 $35,000 Sten 8 $38,400 Sten 7 $37,800 SteD 8 $39,300 Sten 9 $40,900 Sten 10 $42,500 Steps are only guidelines. This compensation plan to not a seniority plan calling for automatic pay increases based on length of service, but upon meeting the criteria established by the job description. The Board of Directors will approve all increases based on a recommendation from either the Finance Committee and/or the Management Committee. /41 F Economic Development Partnership 2807W County Roma 75 of Wright County, Inc. Monticello, MN 3536.2 Phone • (612) 271.51e6 l A non-profit private/public partnership FAX • (612) 295-1421 City of Monticello Attn: Rick Wolfsteller 250 E. Broadway P.O. Box 1147 Monticello, Mo. 55362 CITY OF MONTICELLO MEMBERSHIP DUES FOR 1996 - $1,004.50 PLEASE MAKE PAYABLE TO: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP REMIT TO: SUSAN VERGIN. TREASURER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP P. O. BOX 278, HANOVER. MN 55341 The following dues structure has been approved by the board of the Partnership: Entity Duca Wright County Municipalities - Under 1000 1000 - 2500 2500-5000 Over 5(X10 Townships Utility Companies Telecommunication Pmviders Banta & Lending Institutions Honorary Mcmhcrs (Non -Voting - Receives mailings only) Associate (Includes non-husiness, non-profit. schools and civic organizations) Business • 1 to 4 Employees 5 to 10 Employees I 1 to 20 Employees 21 or More S 10 cents per capita S 100.00 plus 10 cents per capita $ RX).00 $ 500.00 plus 10 cents per capita $1000.00 plus 10 cents per capita S 100.00 plus 10 cents per capita S 10(10.00 plus 10 cents per capita $1000.00 $ 250.00 (Deposits up to $25 Million) S 500.00 (Deposits of $25 M to $50 M) S 750.00 (Deposits of $50 M to $75 M) $1000.00 (Deposits over $75 M) $ 25.00 50.00 S 75.00 $ 100.0(1 $ 150.00 $ 2(X).00 /a Go Number of employees includes active owners and management and pertains to regular employees (over 20 hours per week). Part-time employees of 20 hours or less to be counted as 1/2 employees. Per capita rates are to be based on the 1990 census for governmental units. If you have any questions concerning your dues, they may be directed to Sue Vergin, Treasurer, at (612) 497-3777. If you have already paid your dues, please disregard. DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RECEIPT THANK YOU Council Agenda - 8/12J96 13. Conaideration of approval of color logo and lettering Vinn for the old water tower. (J.S. ) A REFERFNCE AND BACKGROUND: At the July 8 meeting, the City Council awarded a contract to Pittsburg Tank & Tower Co., Inc. of Henderson, Kentucky for repainting our old water tower using a two color system, at a cost of $22,075. In addition, the Council authorized deleting the lettering and adding the installation of the City Logo in a size approximately 10'x 10' on two sides of the tank for an additional $5,900. City staff met with Council member Shirley Anderson and members of the Community Partners Design Committee on two separate occasions to work out the color selection and placement of the logo. This group determined that in addition to the logo, the name "Monticello" should also be included in a wrapping text between the logos and that the water tower should be painted a two-tone blue, dark blue for the railings, legs and ladder and light blue for the standpipe and tank. Since the full size name "Monticello' was deleted to add the logo, I have asked the contractor to give us a cost for adding the lettering back in, which would be a little bit smaller than the current lettering on the tank. I hope to have this information by Monday evening's meeting. 1 have included for your review a black and white copy of the proposed tank colors, logo placement and lettering; a colored version will be available at Monday evening's meeting. R ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: T%e first alternative is to approve the color selection, logo placement and lettering as recommended by the connmittee at an additional estimated cost of $ .(Amount to be supplied at meeting on Monday,) IMe second alternative would be not to approve the plan as recommended by the committee but have the Council select colors and/or logo or lettering placement. It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that the Council authorize City staff to proceed with the contractor as outlined in alternative 11, as recommended by the committee consisting of the Public Works Director, Council member Shirley Anderson, and members of the Monticello Partnere Design Committee. Council Agenda - 8/12/96 Copy of logo and lettering plan in black and white. 20 itertower Improvemen (2) 10' x 11' Logos w/ Wrapping Text ELLO MONTICELLO ONT 13A- ✓Ionticello, Minnesota Council Agenda - 8/12/96 14. Connideration of change in boulevard mo ng oractices. (J.S.) A. RFF .REN .. AND BA K .RO 1ND: Section 8.5.5. of the City Ordinance requires that property owners abutting a boulevard are responsible for its maintenance. The definition of a boulevard as described by ordinance is that portion of the public right-of-way not used for street purposes. Basically, it's that portion from the curb or the street edge to the property line. In the case where there is a platted city street but the street is not constructed, the entire street then becomes boulevard by ordinance, and each abutting property owner is required to maintain to the center of the platted right-of-way. There are a few areas around the community where we have been mowing the boulevards adjoining private property. These have been mowed as a matter of practice not policy, and have most likely been done to improve the appearance of properties continually neglected by property owners. With our workload ever increasing for mowing services and questions as to why we only mow these boulevards, it appears it is time to re-evaluate whether we should be mowing these selected areas at all, and maybe should have never started mowing them in the first place. The following is a list of those areas: 1. West River Street, west side between Hillcrest Road and County Road 75. 2. West River Street, east side of intersection of West River Street and County Road 76. 3. Undeveloped Linn Street from Front Street to the Mississippi River. 4. West 5th Street, north side between Elm Street and Minnesota Street, including the Burlington Northern Railroad property all the way to the railroad tracks. 5. West 5th Street, from Walnut Street to Maple Street., both sides of the street, undeveloped property. 6. Walnut Street, the west side between 6th Street and 5th Street. 7. West 6th Street, north side from Walnut Street to Locust Street. 8, Locust Street, east side from 6th Street to 5th Street. 9. West 7th Street, south side from K -Mart to Minnesota Street. 10. Minnesota Street, west side from City of Monticello Property north to platted 7th Street. 11. West 7th Street, south side from Elm Street west to the City property. 12. East Broadway, County Road 75 between; new pathway and highway adjoining the Monticello School Property between the school tennis courts and Bondhus. 13. Meadow Oak Avenue, cast side at the entrance to Meadow Oak. Council Agenda - 8/12/96 14. Meadow Oak Lane, east side between White Oak Circle and Acorn Circle, undeveloped property owned by Dickman -Knutson. 15. Tanager, undeveloped from Mallard Lane south. 16. Walnut Street, east side between Library and railroad tracks. Enclosed you will find maps showing the general location of these areas. In addition to the above boulevard mowing adjoining private property, the City does mow ditch in -slopes or road shoulders adjoining undeveloped lots in the rural sections of our community where curb and gutter does not exist. These areas are mowed usually once or twice a year. The first alternative would be to discontinue mowing of all of the above boulevards adjoining private property, effective immediately with written notice of the discontinuation sent to each property owner. The second alternative would be to discontinue mowing of the above boulevards adjoining private property after a 30 -day notice to the property owners. The third alternative would be to continue mowing all or some of the above boulevards and develop criteria as to why we are mowing those and not other boulevards throughout the entire community. C_ STAFF 1ZErQ MF.NnATIQN: It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that the City Council request that the Public Works Department cease mowing any boulevards adjoining private property and comply with the ordinance, either effective immediately as in alternative rl or with the 3May notice to the property owner as outlined in alternative p2. Copy of the Boulevard Ordinance; Copy of map showing various locations. 22 CHAPTER 5 PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAYS BOULEVARD SECTION: 8-5-1: Purpose 8-5-2: Definition 8-5-3: Allowable Uses 8-5-4: Prohibited Uses 8-5-5: Maintenance 8-5-1: PURPOSE: The purpose of this chapter is to protect public right-of-ways in the city of Monticello from encroachments. 8-5-2: DEFINITION: For purposes of this chapter, boulevard is that portion of the public right-of-way not used for street purposes. 8-5-3: ALLOWABLE USES: Following are allowable uses of a boulevard: (A) Trees or shrubs as regulated by Chapter 8-3-4 of this ordinance. (8) Mailboxes for U.S. Postal Service, provided all installations of mailboxes in new subdivisions are of the "cluster" concept. (1254, 8/8/94) (C) Driveway accesses as regulated by Monticello Zoning Ordinance. (D) Sidewalks when constructed according to specifications as set forth and approved by the City Engineer. (4/13/87, 0154) (E) Advertising/newspaper boxes or tubes under the following conditions: 1. The advertising/newspaper boxes or tubes must be of an all- purpose/universal type without any advertising, whether individual or cluster concept. 2. The following subdivisions /areas may continue to have one (1) advertising/newspaper box per parcel until such time the U.S. Postal Service converts individual mail boxes to the "cluster" box concept: A. East County Road 39 B. Hart Boulevard C. Anders Wilhelm and Balboul Estates D. West River Road and West County Road 75 Upon conversion of mail boxes to the cluster concept, all advertising/newspaper boxes must also be clustered. MONTICELLO CITY ORDINANCE TITLE VIII/Chet 5/Page 1 14A 3. All individually placed advertising/ newspaper boxes erected after 11/26/79 in new subdivisions not listed above shall be converted to the cluster box concept upon written notice by the Zoning Administrator. 4. In all new subdivisions or areas where the U.S. Postal Service installs cluster.mail boxes, all advertising/ newspaper boxes shall be allowed by the cluster concept only. 5. All advertising/newspaper boxes, whether individual or clustered, shall be maintained by the installer and shall be repaired or replaced within 10 days upon written notice by the City, or the City will have the box or boxes removed at the owner's expense. The City shall not be responsible for damage to any box erected within the boulevard. 6. After 7/1/87, all new installations of advertising/newspaper boxes Within areas where none existed shall be allowed only under the "cluster" concept. (6/22/81, 1156) 8-5-4: PROHIBITED USES: All uses of a boulevard not listed in Section 8-5-3 are prohibited unless a permit has been approved by the City Council of Monticello. All existing uses as of the effective date of this ordinance shall be brought into conformity with City ordinances within sixty (60) days. 8-5-5: MAINTENANCE: Property owners abutting boulevard are responsible for maintenance. (4/10/77, t48) MONTICELLO CITY ORDINANCE TITLE VIII/Chpt 5/Paq* 2 Iq 15 / Off' � �.`;C• • ,� i ,. a �� ♦ , ♦ o co IN � 1 • f TQC fy�� I�• t ♦ ✓vi � J r v. r �. I + + ♦MA NOR y a � + .. `'�. i � � .r • s •• ' �I �n �'% ^„fir\ .'new,' .rtp�j�s' ��"i . ! � � + I i r `.+ ., jl �,�• �•�+' '• yy ♦�`�Gb�^" Wfi yj.'+ • (�f•'w + `t4•a Y C^`"".`.�►rr~ + +i 1 i♦+uW ,` T•>j¢"� i ,fi y may;• •� + �y>•A , vo, �\ r+ + �++ ,6�•�fC �` o •• G wi a'p � ' A, . ��d'��+;✓.11l ! � �,�1•�� y�t ,ir N,'"L♦�O nJ � FR• h /C p 'r•�ri Fi� m •fit%, m n•�` .ISS 94-04F .V VER MILL (Private) �l�rlTf 1 �J 1- 4=O2a-EAsrw0Q,D K �` •�� .`� 1 ' wan � V. � J ar.or LS 5 -= Xi �— I a' 2C,"M. yo. 0 �Rms ,, ♦ 14002 , n � .j Council Agenda - 8/12196 ,..M7 M ,71 riff To comply with the GMEF guidelines, the EDA requests the City Council review the proposed guideline changes for approval. The GMEF Guidelines state: "At a minimum, the EDA shall review the Fund Guidelines on an annual basis. No changes to the GMEF guidelines shall be instituted without prior approval of the City Council." At the EDA meeting of August 6, 1996, the guidelines were reviewed and the EDA recommends the following addition and change: LOAN FEE • Loan fee to be paid by applicant to the EDA within 5 working days after City Council approval of GMEF loan. Nonrefundable. The addition to the loan fee provision is intended to serve as an application fee. The applicant is spared the cost of an additional fee, and the provision encourages applicant commitment and a timely commencement of the funded project. NON-PERFORMANCE EXTENSION - The 180 -day non-performance date can be extended up to an additional 120 days. A written request is received 30 days prior to expiration of the 180 -day non-performance date. Approval of the EDA membership by majority vote. This now provision provides an applicant with an option. A motion to approve modifying the GM EF guideline provisions as recommended: Loan Fee Non-Performanoe Extension A motion to deny approval for modification of the GMEF guideline provisions as recommended. Council Agenda - 8/12/96 A motion to table any action. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: EDA Treasurer Wolfsteller and EDA Executive Director Koropchak recommend approval of the proposed changes to the GMEF guidelines. D. SUPPORTING DATA Excerpt of the existing loan fee provision of the GMEF Guidelines. N. TERMS AND CONDITIONS • LOAN SIZE - • LEVERAGING - • LOAN TERM - • INTEREST RATE - • LOAN FEE - • PREPAYMENT POLICY - • DEFERRAL OF PAYMENTS - • INTEREST LIMITATION ON GUARANTEED LOANS - Minimum of $5,000 and maximum not to exceed 50% of the remaining revolving loan fund balance; for example, if the remaining revolving loan fund balance is $50,000, the maximum loan issuance is $25,000. Minimum 60% privatetpublic non-GMEF Maximum 30% public (GMEF) Minimum 10% equity EDA loan Personal property term not to exceed life of equipment (generally 5.7 years). Real estate property marimum of 5 -year maturity amortized up to 30 years. Balloon payment at 5 years. Fixed rate not less than 2% below Minneapolis prime rate. Prime rate per National Bank of Minneapolis on date of EDA loan approval. Minimum fee of $200 but not to exceed 1.6% of the total loan project. Fees are to be documented and no duplication of fees between the lending institution and the RLF. Loan fee may be incorporated into project coat. EDA retains the right to reduce or waive loan fee or portion of loan fee. No penalty for prepayment. 1. Approval of the EDA membership by majority vote. 2. Extend the balloon if unable to refinance, verification letter from two lending institutions subject to Board approval. Subject to security and/or reviewal by EDA. KA GMEF GUIDELINES: 8/27/94 Page 3 Council Agenda - 8/12/96 A. REFERENCE AND BA .K .RO 1Nn: The city staff has started to work on preparing a preliminary 1997 budget that the City Council must adopt by September 15, 1996. With our regular first council meeting in September being on the 9th, it is assumed that by this date we will adopt a preliminary budget and maximum tax levy that the city would propose for the 1997. If it is not adopted by the regular meeting on the 9th, a special meeting would be necessary to adopt a final preliminary budget by the 15th. In order to adopt a preliminary tax levy, I'm sure the Council will want to meet in one or more workshop sessions to review the proposed budget for next year. Because we are a few weeks behind schedule, it is anticipated that a preliminary summary budget will not be available until the last week of August which will then be delivered to the Council for review. It is suggested that we meet sometime during the last week of August or shortly after Labor Day to go over the proposed budget and especially the capital outlay type proposals that may be included in the budget. If changes are recommended to the preliminary budget, this would allow a few days for the staff to make any changes from the workshop and still allow the Council to adopt a preliminary budget at its regular meeting on September 9. While the preliminary budget is just that, preliminary, the proposed tax levy we need to adopt by September 15 does become the final one as far as the maximum we can levy for next year. From that standpoint, we need to be comfortable with the preliminary budget as far as the maximum levy is concerned, but it would still allow us to have more workshops later this fall to fine tune the final numbers. While we certainly don't want to overstate the tax levy if we intend to lower it later on, we do want to have a sufficient amount in the preliminary numbers by September 15 as we will not be allowed to increase it later. It has been our past practice that larger capital outlay expenditures are still reviewed by the Council during the year rather than automatically being expended if it was part of the budget. Rather than having to individually discuss various purchases throughout the year, the Council could certainly review the proposed budget in more dotail and discuss capital expenditures during the workshop. To do this would certainly take more time than we have probably been spending in the past at our workshops, but I will leave Council Agenda - 8/12/96 this up to the Council to decide on what detail of discussion you want to include in the preliminary budget review. My goal would be to deliver a preliminary budget summary to the Council by August 27. We can discuss at the council meeting what times or dates may be suitable for everyone to schedule a workshop session.