Loading...
HRA Agenda 08-10-1988AGENDA MONTICELLO HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY i Wednesday, August 10, 1988 - 7:00 A.M. City Hall MEMBERS: Chairperson Ken Maus, Lovell Schrupp, Ben Smith, Al Larson, and Everette Ellison. STAFF MEMBERS: Rick Wolfsteller and 011ie Koropchak. 1. CALL TO ORDER. 2. APPROVAL OF THE JUNE 8. 1988 HRA MINUTES. 3. FINANCIAL REPORT OF THE SEVEN TAE INCREMENT FINANCE DISTRICTS. 4. UPDATE OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION ON THE RESIDENTIAL SURVEY PERMIT FEES AND THE CLIFFORD OLSON PROPERTY. 5. CONSIDERATION TO REVIEW THE RECOM4IENDED BUILDING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS. 6. CONSIDERATION TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED CITY'S HRA BUDGET. 7. CONSIDERATION OF CONCEPT FOR CONSTRUCTION FIVE PROPOSED OFFICE/ WAREHOUSE AND MINI STORAGE. 8. CONSIDERATION OF INFORMATION TO MODIFY THE CURRENT TAX INCREMENT DISTRICTS INTO ONE FINANCE PLAN. 9. CONSIDERATION TO REVIEW MONTI TRUCK REPAIR'S USE OF HRA PROPERTY AS A USED CAR IAT. 10. OTHER BUSINESS. 11. ADJOURNMENT. M MINUTES MONTICELLO HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Wednesday, June 8, 1988 - 7:00 AM City Hall Members Present: Chairperson Ken Maus, Lovell Schrupp, Everette Ellison, and Al Larson. Members Absent: Ben Smith City Staff Present: Jeff O'Neill and 011ie Koropchak 1. CALL TO ORDER. Chairperson Ken Maus called the HRA meeting to order at 7:10 AM. 2. APPROVAL OF THE MAY 4 AND MAY 9, 1988 HRA MINUTES. A motion by Everette Ellison was to approve the May 4 and May 9, 1988 HRA minutes, seconded by Al Larson, the motion passed 4-0. 3. CONSIDERATION TO ATTEND A JOINT MEETING BETWEEN THE HRA, THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. Koropchak informed the Authority members of the scheduled date, Tuesday. June 28, 1988, 7:30 PM, City Council Chambers, for the joint meeting between the HRA, the IDC, and the Plooning Commission. The general purpose of the meeting is to discuss and establish common goals and strategies for economic growth in Monticello. HRA members Were asked for suggestions in planning the agenda. The members suggested each commission/ committee member be identified and the commission/committee chairperson explain their purpose and current actions. 4. CONSIDERATION TO REVIEW THE RESPONSES OF THE HRA TOWNHOUSE SURVEY. Chairperson Maus reported that developer Veit may have last Interest in the HRA concept of quality townhouses for the elderly for reasons other than just the low rate of return to the local newspaper survey. Al Larson reiterated hie opinion that he never saw the survey to be a valid assessment of the interest in townhouse concepts. Everette Ellison expressed that most developers today do not want to take a risk. Mr. Larson suggested the HRA keep looking for a developer willing to take a risk, willing to build a model townhouse for people to see and walk through, and for the HRA and the developer to jointly research the beet location for such a concept. Chairperson Maus suggested Jeff O'Neill check with the Builders Association in the Motro areas of Edon Prairie and Brooklyn Center and with larger banks for interested developers and/or run an advertisement in a construction bulletin. NRA Minutes - 6/8/88 5. CONSIDERATION TO REVIEW THE RESPONSES FROM THE BLOCK 51 ALLEY UPGRADE OPINION SURVEY. Koropchak had included in the agenda supplement a copy of the opinion survey and reported that a portion of the property owners had been personally contacted. The HRA agrees that property owners must work on a 100% agreeable project. Of the property owners contacted to date, not all were 1n agreement: Topel's seeing no benefit for the coat and suggested the property owners meet on their own to consider upgrading the alley. Taylor agreed to the concept but was in favor of only a 20 foot alley easement. Sandberg expressed his lose of parking spaces by realignment of the alley, however, would consider the project if all else were in agreement. Property owners questioned the legality of the Metcalf 6 Larson proposed project to close off the alley. Koropchak reported in her conversations with Mr. Larson or Mr. Metcalf, they are open to both design plans (through alley or closed alley). At this time, Koropchak hes not contacted Scott Douglas, Dr. Jones, or Gustafson's. The upgrade plans included alignment of the alley to abutt the south property line of the north block property lots or the northerly 30 feet of Lots 1-10, Block 51, Original Plat, City of Monticello. The property owners would agree to grant to the City a 30 foot easement or deed, of which, 20 feet would be designated alley. The plan would include proper alley drainage (storm sewer catch basin and piping) and alignment of electrical poles. Koropchak is to continua will the opinion survey. The project coat would be assessed 100% to all benefiting property owners. 6. CONSIDERATION TO ESTABLISH THE HRA'S DIRECTION ON THE POTENTIAL EKPIRED JUNE 30, 1988 OPTION AGREEMENTS. Chairperson Ken Maus asked Jeff O'Neill if the HRA's elderly housing project within Tax Increment Finance District /2 was at the mercy of the Planning Commission. Jeff responded he didn't think so. The Planning Commission is considering approval of Mr. Dave Hornig's proposed 44 -unit subsidized family project. Originally, Mr. Hornig's plan consisted of subsidized elderly and family housing which was in competition for FmHA funding. FmHA asked Mr. Hornig to redesign his plan to accommodate strictly subsidized family housing to allow funding to the Metcalf/Larson elderly project. This was approved. Additional information was provided to the Planning Commission thereafter, regarding availability of residential housing to apartment housing. Monticello Comprehensive Guide states a 552 residential and 452 apartment ratio. The proposed 44 -unite would place the ratio near or above that guideline. With assurance from r Joff O'Neill of no foreseeable conflict with the Hornig project the HRA proceeded to discuss the extension of the Option Agreements with Jones, Stoltons. and O'Connor. With no concrete BRA Minutes - 6/8/88 k 6. CONTINUED. answer for the expected final FmHA approval date for funding, the BRA members agreed to extend the option agreements for 90 days or through September 30, 1988. Directions were to contact Jones and Steltons for executed entension option agreements, followed by contact with Joe O'Connor. The HRA may need to consider the purchase of O'Connor's property now or in the future. The HRA does have the power to obtain loans from the bank. Koropchak is to contact Tom Hayes on the legal procedures to extend the option agreements. 7. OTHER BUSINESS. Jeff O'Neill responded to the NRA question of, "How the Kjellberg housing development plan was proceeding?" Jeff is designing a devel- opment agreement for the planned 91 residential lots and 28 new mobile lots. 8. ADJOURNMENT. The HRA meeting adjourned by a consensus of the members. M -,Cy\ Olive M. Koropchak Executive Secretary for the HRA HRA Agenda - 8/10/88 3. FINANCIAL REPORT OF THE SEVEN TAX INCREMENT FINANCE DISTRICTS. A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND. Administrator Rick Wolfsteller 1s in the process of preparing the financial report of the seven districts which will be presented at the HRA meeting. 4. UPDATE OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION ON THE RESIDENTIAL SURVEY PERMIT FEES AND THE CLIFFORD OLSON PROPERTY. A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND. Below are excerpts of the July 25, 1988 City Council Minutes on two items which were of previous interest and/or discussion by the HRA. Enclosed in a copy of the approved residential survey permit fee. This is an informational item and needs no HRA action. Consideration of Permit and Fee Adjustments. Assistant City Administrator outlined recommendations made by the Industrial Development Committee regarding a proposed reduction in the overall cost for residential building permits in the City of Monticello of 20 percent. O'Neill thenont)tned two methnAs by which the 20 percent reduction could bo accomplished. Alternative 01 included modification of survey requirement and reduction in the plan review fee. Alternative 02 included maintaining the full survey require- ment and a large reduction in the plan review fee. Both alternatives included a 10 percent reduction in the building inspection portion of the permit fee. Motion made by Bill Fair to approve Alternate 02 which called for a 10 percent reduction in building inspection fee, 85 percent reduction in plan review foe, and continued require- ment of a survey. Motion seconded by Marren Smith, motion passed unanimously. Consideration for Petition for Abatement of Dangerous Buildings. Staff reported that a petition for abatement of dangerous building was received Wednesday. July 20, 1988 from neighboring property owners of the Clifford Olson rental property at 100 East Fourth Street. Present at the Council meeting voicing their concerns regarding the dilapidated rental house were a number of nearby property owners. Spokesperson for their group, Jerry Clemott, noted that the old gray building is an oyesoar and needs to come down. It also represents a public safety hazard and its presence reduces the property values of the nearby buildings. Dan Blonigon BRA Agenda - 8/10/88 q asked if the building is rentable. Building Inspector, l Gary Anderson noted that the building is not fit for habitation at this time and that it would be very expensive to make the improvements to the building that would be required prior to allowing habitation of the building. At this point, Staff and City Attorney, Tom Bayes outlined the abatement procedure. Being no further discussion, motion made by Bill Fair to proceed with procedures required for the abatement of the dangerous building owned by Clifford Olson at 100 Bast Fourth Street. Motion secunded by Dan Blonigen, motion carried unanimously. BUILDING PERMIT FEE SURVEY - RECOMMENDED CHANGES A 1tc/11w>`ivt jZ JULY 21, 1988 TYPE OF CCNSTRUCTICN - WOOD FRAME TYPE V 1300 SQUARE FOOT RAMSLER FULL BASEMENT - UNFINISHED 24x24' GARAGE TOTAL SQUARE FE= BLONG - 1300 MCNTI- SAINT ALBERT- BUFF- BIG ELK WATER ROCK- AVE CELLO MICHEAL VILLE ALLO LAKE RIVER TONN FORD I INSPECTION FEE ( $460 2358 3358 5358 $500 $572 $386 S358 I $4-.9 1 (Naw $511) IREDUCEO 10% 1 PLAN RElIEi+P• L S50 $232 $232 $232 $O $143 $251 $232 $lit 1 (Naw $332) IRE0JCEO 85% f SURCH. I $36 $38 $38 $38 231 $43 $42 $38 I $38 1 I WATER HOOK-UP FEE I $300 $600 $800 $100 $388 $750 $400 I $1,000 I $542 1 METER/OTHER 1 $100 $175 $185 $70 $100 $75 $65 $90 I 5108 1 I SEWER HOOK --JP FEE I $300 $150 5475 $100 $388 $750 $300 $685 I $393 1 II SURVEY*010' I 5200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $200 30 $0 $50 (STAYS THE SAME) I I PLUMB. I $19 $25 $25 $28 $0 $45 SO $40 $23 I MECHANICAL I 30 $20 $20 30 SO $60 $0 $40 3.8 1 ELECTRIC I $45 $45 $45 $45 $45 $45 S45 $45 $45 1 (J DEPST I SO $0 30 $0 SO SO (500) $O 50 1 t i (STRT OPST) 30 i OTHER I PRN OED SO 1 TOTAL 1$1,509 $1,643 $2.178 $971 $1.451 $2,683 51,489 $2.528 $1,805 1 % OF AVERAGE 1 840 91% 121% 54% 80% 149% 82% 140% 1 I 1987 TAXES 1$1,250 $1,610 $1,761 $1,511 $1.907 $1,603 $1,607 $1,755 I $1,625 1 1 (Monticello provides garbage pick-wo service) 1 I 1ST YR TAX + FEES 1$2,759 $3.253 $3.939 $2.482 $3,358 $4,288 $3.096 $4.283 I $3.432 1 I FIVE YEAR COST 1$7.759 $9,693 $10.983 $8.526 $10.986 $10.698 $9.524 $11,303 I $9.934 1 (NOT INC SE-WER/WATI PERCENT OF AVERAGE I 78% 98% 111% 86% 111% 108% 96% 1144 100% SUMMUIRY OF RECOMMENDED CHANGES NEW TOTAL $1.509 PREJIOUS TOTAL FEES $184) NET REDUCTION $333 91 REDUCTION 18% • Industrial/Commercial plan review to roman the same except that Consulting fees in exceas of 150% of plan review will be charged to Conn/Ind •. Unit coat charge to remain at $300 for now. •■" Survey requirement Limited to verification or staking of corner stakes and establishing proper level of garage floor. �• Staking of foundation footings reouired if foundation footback located within 2 feet of minimum reouiremwta. HRA Agenda - 8/10/88 / 5. CONSIDERATION TO REVIEW THE RECOMMENDED BUILDING ORDINANCE 1 REQUIREMENTS. A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND. One of the Industrial Development Committee's (IDC) 1988 Goals was to review City permit fees, industrial building ordinance requirements, industrial landscaping requirements, and industrial water and sewer hook-up fees. The IDC is reviewing the requirements to determine if Monticello's requirements ere too rigid compared to other competitive communities. The IDC would like a quality industrial park, however, wants to remain competitive without placing extra financial burdens on a proposed developer's expansion. The enclosed recommended industrial commerical structure restrictions were prepared by Assistant Administrator Jeff O'Neill. The IDC will review the recommmendations at the August 18th meeting. This item was also addressed at the joint meeting held in June. Staff would like the HRA members to read the recommendations and be prepared to give input at their Wednesday meeting. B. SUPPORTING DATA. 1. Present requirements. Q 2. Recommended structure restrictions for discussion and Input. 6. CONSIDERATION TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED CITY'S HRA BUDGET. A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND. City Department Heade have been asked to comprise a wish list of 1989 Capital Outlay expenditures. Administrator Rich Wolfateller will be present at the meeting to answer any HRA questions about the process of or the Proposed 1989 City Budget. I might suggest the HRA members review their 1988 goals, brainstorm for future goals which may need funding as the HRA has the power to levy up to 3/4 mill or 1 mill for designated projects. Also, the HRA should consider the results of the TIF Districts Financial report (Agenda item 01). HRA members are encouraged to call Rick prior or after the meeting if one wishes to give input for the proposed 1989 HRA Director's salary or you may wish to give input at the meeting. t (K) Any proposed structure which will, under this j Ordinance and subsequent amendments, become non -conforming but for which a building permit has been lawfully granted prior to the effective date of this Ordinance, may be completed in acordance with the approved plans; provided construction is started within sixty (60) days of the effective date of this Ordinance and subsequent amendments, is not abandoned for a period of more than one hundred twenty (120) days, and continues to completion within two (2) years. Such structure and use shall thereafter be a legally non -conforming structure and use. 3-2: GENERAL BUILDING AND PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS: (A) PURPOSE: The purpose of this Section of the Zoning Ordinance is to establish general development performance standards. These standards are intended and designed to assure compatibility of use; and to enhance the health, safety and general welfare of the residents of the community. (e) DWELLING UNIT RESTRICTION: 1. No cellar, basement, garage, tent, or accessory building shall at any time be used as an independent residence or dwelling unit, temporarily or permanently. 2. Tanta, play housas or similar structures may be used for play or recreational purpoaso. 3. The following Architectural Controls shall apply in R-1, R-2, R-3 and PZ -R Diotricta: (a) Minimum building width of 26 feet. (b) Minimum 3:12 roof pitch with minimum six (6) inch soffit. (c) Building muot be anchored to a permanent concrete or treated wood foundation. (d) No metal siding shall be permitted wider than 12 inches or without a one-half (i) inch or more overlap and railer. (a) Minimum floor area shall be 1,000 square fast. (f) All dwellings shall meat all regulations of the Minnesota Uniform Building Coda. 7�a1Cv.� 4. In all Districts, all buildings shall be flnl&had on all sides with consistent architectural quality, materials and design. (0) INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE RESTRICTIONS PURPOSE: The purpose of this section is to assure that buildings in Commercial and Industrial areas of Monticello will be acceptable in both visual and functional terms. To that end, this section identifies permitted building materials which are durable and long lasting and which generally present an attractive visual appearance as compared to less durable materials. APPLICATION: The provisions of this section shall apply to all new structures including additions or remodeling and to all developments within areas zoned for commercial and industrial use within the City of Monticello. No improvements (as herein defined) shall be erected, placed or altered on any building site until the building or other improvement plans and specifications, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Monticello Planning Commission as to conformity and harmony of external design with existing structures in the development giving due regard to the anticipated use as it may affect adjoining structures, and as to location of the improvement with respect to topography, grade and finished ground elevation. 3. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN: The exterior architectural appearance of the proposed structure shall not be at vnrianco with the exterior architectural appearance of existing structures within the immediate area taking into consideration building materials, size, shape and heights, so as to cause an adverse impact upon property values in the immediate area and the City as a whole,. Mechanical equipment, such as furnaces, air conditioners, elevator, transformers, and utility equipment, shall be screened, whether on roof or mounted on the ground, with a screening material similar to or compatible with material used on the main structure. All additions or remodeling shall be compatible in scale, material and masking. PERMITTED MATERIALS: Structural systems of all buildings shall be as required by the Uniform Building Code. Materials shall not be so at variance with the exterior materials of the existing structures within the immediate area or the City a whole ac to adversely impact the property values In the affected area or the City as a whole, or adversely affect the public health, safety and general welfare. Exterior building finioheo shall consist of materials comparable in grado and quality to the following: I page number titles page number title (0. Continued) a. Brick b. Natural Stone C. Precast concrete units and concrete block, provided that surfaces are molded, serrated examples or treated with a textured material in order to give the surface a three-dimensional character. d. Wood, provided surfaces are finished for exterior use and only woods of proven exterior durability are used such as cedar, redwood and cypress. e. Curtain wall panels of steel, fiberglass and aluminum, (non structural , non -load bearing), provided such panels are factory fabricated and finished with a permanent durable non -face surface and their fastpnery are of a corrosion resistant design and provided further than no more than one-third of the wall surface facing a public street or Interstate freeway or adjacent to a residential or public area, consist of such panels. f, Glass Curtain wall panels. 4. PROHIBITED MATERIALS: a. Face materials which rapidly deteriorate or become unsightly such as galvanized metal, unfinished structural clay tile and metal panels not fantory finiohed with a permanent surface. b. buildings comprised exclusively of metal. C. Buildings where wood poles or timbers are the primary support of the roof system and from the foundation structure; providod that wood foundations shall be permissible. (Pole buildings) d. Sheet metal, plastic or fiberglass aiding, unless such siding is a component of a factory fabricated and finished panel. HRA Agenda - 8/10/88 7. CONSIDERATION OF CONCEPT FOR CONSTRUCTION FIVE PROPOSED OFFICE/WAREHOUSE AND MINI STORAGE. A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND. Gary LaFromboise of Construction Five met with Rick Wolfsteller, Gary Anderson, and myself on Wednesday, August 3, 1988. Mr. LaPromboise presented a preliminary site plan for the proposed construction of two decorative block office/warehouse facilities totaling 24,000 square feet and the proposed construction of three various sized concrete block mini -storage facilities totaling 14,800 square feet. This would be a spring construction on Outlet A. Construction Five, City of Monticello which totals 3.17 acres and is within the established Tax Increment Finance Redevelopment District 95. Since the developer owns the property, the HRA may consider a project cost to include drainage pipes and the Installation of piping replacing the current above ground drainage ditch. Other possible project coat may include needed soil correction, landscaping, and parking lot curb. Mr. LaFromboise did pick up a petition requesting a feasibility study for the drainage ditch. I calculated estimated Tax Increment numbers on this project, however, I can not calculate the project cost until such numbers are available. No tlnanclal numbers were discussed with Mr. LaFrombolse. This is an informational item and requires no HRA action at this time. B. SUPPORTING DATA. 1. Map of the site location. 2. Preliminary site plan. 8. CONSIDERATION OF INFORMATION TO MODIFY THE CURRENT TAX INCREMENT DISTRICTS INTO ONE FINANCE PLAN. A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND. For some time City Staff hasn't had a clear understanding of what opportunities the MRA may have if a Tax Increment District generates an annual excess increment beyond the designated annual debt service payment. Can excess monies be transferred from one district to another district, or can monies be designated toward a designated project? It's my understanding if we would modify our seven districts finance plane into one finance plan, we would have the availability of the excess monies. Mr. Ed Tschido of Professional Planning and Development, North Mankato, Minnesota, did meat with Rick, Jeff, and myself in Juno. Consideration by City Staff is to study the possibility to hire a professional firm to adviea ue on the above issue. Mr. Techada mallod us a proposol of on and estimated cost to assist the city with unanswered TIP concerns. I suggest the City contact one or two other consulting firms before a recommendation is made. CONSTRUCTION FIVE, INC. rL. 2 OW' fM 4. 7- 1 ry +?-J.AAn lulo. Ivcwa 4P PARK I C] � /f I • A�.MFI/ _ 1177 v . �S __ �`� {�.�I.... _ � "R6'� L,!' �— r�I •N .1•� ✓Y!' .. •�! Mn1�wr � .Y �-� �. - I. ` • ` jii I �,� .M HRA Agenda - 8/10/88 8. CONTINUED. The Industrial Development Committee hired Business Development Services, Inc. to conduct their Market Labor Survey and the City has an agreement with Business Development Properties for a potential Monticello industrial site location. BDS also provides consulting on TIP. No HRA action necessary. Rick Wolfsteller will advise the HRA members on current proposed changes for TIF due to Legislature action. 9. CONSIDERATION TO REVIEW MONTI TRUCK REPAIR'S USE OF HRA PROPERTY AS A USED CAR LOT. A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND. The City did erect "no parking signs" on the old Monticello Ford Property to avoid public comment, setting of a precedence, and to avoid the city's risk of liability, however, these signs were removed. The HRA and the City Staff felt to accommodate continued negotiations with property owner, Joe O'Connor, it was beat to pull back on the issue. With the start of Streatecape construction, Arrigoni Brothers is using the lotto park their equipment. If an accident would occur it may become a legal issue of liability? The City Staff is concerned and would like HRA input of the need for a possible resolution. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS. 1. Leave as is. allow vehicle parking without conforming to City Ordinance. 2. Do not allow vehicle parking. 3. Initiate a property lease agreement between the HRA and Joe O'Connor for 11.00 and than request O'Connor to obtain a conditional use permit to open or outdoor service, sale and rental (Seo Supporting Data, Item B.). The requested conditional use permit is in conformance with the City Ordinance. According to Gary Anderson, this would require a public hearing and the conditional use permit would be 1125. The soonest a public hearing could be hold is September 6, 1988. The extended option agreement between the HRA and O'Connor expires September 30, 1988. Personnally, I don't expect FmHA approval by the and of September. The September HRA meeting shouted includo.:altornativo choices to the extended option agreements. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION. Staff has no racommondation but would like HRA input. D. SUPPORTING DATA. 1. City Ordinance Requirement for Conditional Use Permits. IQ) Finance companies. (RI Furniture stores. (U] Haberdasheries and ladies ready -to -veer. (V] Insurance sales, claims and branch offices. (W] Jewelry stores and watch repair. (XI Leather goods and luggage stores. (Y1 Record - music shops. (2I Reetaurants, tea rooms, cafes, taverns and off -sale liquor stores. (AA) Sewing machine sales and service. (BB] Shoe stores. (CC) Tailor shops. (DDI Theatres, not of the outdoor drive-in type. IEEI Toy atores. (&1 Travel bureaus, transportation ticket offices. (001 Variety stores, S G 10 stores, and stores of similar nature. (NRI Nearing apparel. (I11 Government and public utility buildings. 16-3: PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES: The following are permitted accessory uses in a "B -d" District: (Al All permitted accessory uses in a "B-3" District. td -A: CONDITIONAL USES: The following are conditional uses in a "B-6" District: (RCQUZ49A a coneWonat use permit based upon paoceduaea set doktA in and 4egutated by Chapte4 42 o6 t(t:A Oadi.nance.) (A) Open and Outdoor storage as an accessory uaa provided that: 1. The area is fenced and screened from view of neighboring residential uses or if abutting a residential district in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 (01 of this Ordinance. 2. Storage is screened from view from:the public right-of-way in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2, (G] of this Ordinance. 3. Storage area is grassed or surfaced to control dust. 4. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source shall not be visible from the public right-of-way or from neighboring residences and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 (H) of this Ordinance. 5. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this Ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. (B] Open or outdoor service, sale and rental as a principal and accessory use and including sales in or from motorized vehicles, trailors or wagons, provided that: 1. Outside service, sales and equipment rental connected with the principal use is limited to thirty percent (301) of the gross floor f area of the principal use. Thin percentage may be increased as a condition of the m conditional use permit. 2. Outside sales areas are fenced or screened from view of the neighboring residential uses or an abutting residential district in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [G] of this ordinance. 3. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source shall not be visible from the public right-of-way or from neighboring residences and shall be in compliance with Cheptor 3, Suction 2 (H) of this Ordinance. 4. Salon area is grassed or ourfacod to control dust. 5. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this Ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. (C) Custom manufacturing, restricted production and repels limited to the following: Art, needlework jewelry from precious metals, watches, dentures, optical lenass provided that: 1. Such use is accessory as defined in Chapter 2, Section 2 of this Ordinance to the principal use of the property. Planning commission - 6/14/88 Item 04 MEMO DATE: June 13, 1988 70: Monticello Planning Commission PROM: 011ie Roropchak, HRA Director SUBJECT: Hornig's Development, 44 Subsudized Multi -Family Unit The Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Members strongly encourage the Planning Commission to consider the approval of Hornig's Development, a 44 subsudized multi -family unit, thereby allowing the Metcalf 5 Larson subsudized elderly project on hest Broadway to continue. 1. The HRA has earmarked the redevelopment of the southwesterly Block 51 as one of the 1988 goals. 2. The HRA acquired the Ford property with the intension to redevelop the area. 3. The HRA's redevelopment plan eliminates Uight in the downtown area. 4. The HRA has option agreements for purchase and demolition of the properties currently owned by Jones, O'Connor, and Stelton's, these to be renewed June 30, 1988. 5. The HRA has an option agreement with Metcalf and Larson. 6. The Metcalf and Larson project must be the sole elderly project submitted to the Farmers Home Administration for 1986 funding. 7. Without Farmers Home Administration funding, the Metcalf and Larson project is dead. S. The HRA has worked long and hard on this project and does not deny that the project cost is high. 9. The HRA project would enhance the Streetocape Project. 10. The HRA project oould help encourage the property owners of Block 51 to improve the alley. 11. The HRA project would increase pedestrian traffic to the downtown area. Thank you for considering the HRA concerns.