Loading...
City Council Agenda Packet 08-28-1978AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MDNTIGELLO CITY COUNCIL August 28, 1978 - 7:30 P.M. Mayor: C. 0. Johnson Councilmen: Dan Blonigen, Arve Gri.msmo, Gene Walters, Philip White. Meeting to be taped. Citizens comments: Public Hearing - Consideration of Variance on Fence Height Limitation - Gus Hammer. pp. Public Hearing - Setback Variance Request - Duane Rajanen. �. Public Hearing - Variance Request from Minimum Lot Size - Darwin Straw. Public Hearing - Variance on Setback for a�Garage - Tom Chock A.Copneiderati�on of Rez o g Rueet from R-1 Slog Block .1, Riverside Addition - John Sandberg. Consideration of Ordinance Amendment regarding Salvage and/or Jurftards. �. Consideration of Approval of Appraisals for Easements for 1978-1 Improve- ment Project. Consideration of Approval of Tari Cab License. 9. Consideration of Calling for a Sale of General Obligation Improvement Bonds to Finance 1978-1 Improvement Project. �y0. Consideration of Soliciting Quotes for Shelving. 'X11. Consideration of Amending Policy for Processing Variance Requests on Certificate of Occupancies. 2. Consideration of Making'an Offer on House Behind City Hall. . Consideration of Granting More Time to Make Housing Code Repairs. G. Consideration of Approval of Final Payment to Kenco, Inc. on 1977-2 I Improvement Project. J15. Approval of bills for month of August, 1978. J16. Approval of minutes - August 14, 1978 and August 21, 1978. Unfinished Business - 1 Now Business u� pp,40�- � M AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MONTICEL10 CITY COUNCIL August 28, 1978 - 7:30 P.M. Mayor: C. 0. Jahn son Councilmen: Dan Blonigen, Arve Grimsmo, Gene Walters, Philip White. Meeting to be taped. Citizens comments: Public Hearing - Consideration of Variance on Fence Height Limitation - Gus Hammer. k2. Public Hearing - Setback Variance Request - Duane Rajanen. �. Public Hearing - Variance Request from Minimum Int Size - Darwin Straw. y. Public Hearing - Variance on Setback for Garage - Tom Chock. A. Public He Pro osed use of godor Revenue Sh Ends. J6 Consideration of Rezo�iing Request from 1 to R,-3, iot 5g Block 1, Riverside Addition - John Sandberg. �i. Consideration of Ordinance Amendment regarding Salvage and/or Junkyards. �. Consiaz:ration of Approval of Appraisals for Easements for 1978-1 Improve- ment Project. (�. Consideration of Approval of Taxi Cab License. ,\9. Consideration of Calling for a Sale of General Obligation Improvement Bonds to Finance 1978-1 Improvement Project. oF. Conaideration of Soliciting Quotes for Shelving. 011. Consideration of Amending Policy for Processing Variance Requests on Certificate of Occupancies. tJ 2. Consid•_ration of Making an Offer on House Behind City Hall. �iJ. Consi^.erstion of Granting More Time to Make Housing Code Repairs. 11., on;._'. rntion of Approval of Final Payment to Kanco, Inc. on 1977-2 Impr,,%-n•ciL Project. .15. Approval of billy for month of August, 1978. Nib. Appru a� of minutes - AuguyL 14, 1978 and August 21, 1978. Unfiniah.jF�.ainvay - r" Ne.+ Vueln. v i N U� I Z4.1g 0� I� AGENDA SUPPLEMENT 1. Public Hearing - Consideration of Variance on Fence Height Limitation - Gus Hamner. Mr. Gus Hamer, whose residence is at 900 West Broadway, Lots 5 & 6 of Block 43, is requesting a variance to allow a 6' fence to be on his west property line and 16' in front of his house. Reason for request is that according to Monticello Ordinance Section 10-3-2(F), no fence shall exceed ' in height unless it is behind the front line of the principal building. Mr. Hamner is requesting this variance to provide privacy from the abutting residence. You might want to note that while Mr. Hammer is requesting a variance to put the fence 16' in front of his residence, the abutting residence is only 8' closer to the front property line than Mr. Hammer's residence. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended granting 11 the variance request to place Mr. Hammer's fence 16' from the houoe, but possibly the Council might want to consider granting Mr. Hammer a variance of 8' which would put the fence even with the front of the abutting residence. Please note, a hearing for a variance is held at the Council level and requires 4/5's vote for approval. y POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval or denial of variance request. REFERENCES: See enclosed map and detailed map. 2. Public Hearing - Setback Variance Request - Duane FWanen. Mr. Duane Rajanen, whose residence is at 412 E. 3rd Street, legally described as the * of Lot 9 and all of Lot 8, Block 35, is requesting a variance to allow a garage to be set back 5' from the easterly pro- perty line. Monticello ordinance provides that setbacks within a residential zone be 10' back. You may want to note that at the present, there is an attached garage on the house that would be removed prior to the building of a new garage. iQ At their last meeting, the Monticello Planning Commission unanimously approved of the variance request. Q Again, since this is m variance, the hearing is held at the Council Level and requires 4/5's vote for approval. \ POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval or denial of variance request. K REFERENCES: See anclosed map. 3. Public Hearing _ Variance Request from Minimum Lot Size - Darwin Straw. Mr. Darwin Straw is requesting a variance to allow subdivision of Y` Lots 19 2 and the W# of Lot 39 Block 109 into two lots, one lot being 66' x 165' and the other lot being 99' x 1651. There is an existing home and garage on Lot 1 and the W of Lot 2, and as a result of discussion and recommendation from an abutting property owner, Mr. Darwin Straw was agreeable to creating two lots, one lot being 75' x 165+ and the other lot being 90' x 1651. This recommendation was made in order that the small lot would closer approximate the City's minimum width requirement of $01. This particular lot could not be made any wider than 75' since the existing garage is within 76' approxi- mately of the east property line (see enclosed map for detail). As a result, the Planning Commission then unanimously voted to approve a variance to allow one lot 75' x 165' with the provision that the existing garage drip line not obstruct the newly created easterly lot, and the other lot would be 90' x 165'. Again, this is a variance at which the hearing is to be held at the .�1 Council level and 4/5's approval is necessary. KPOSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval or denial of variance request. REFERENCES: See enclosed map and detail on lots and existing buildings. 4. Public Hearing - Variance on Setback for Garage - Tom Chock. Mr. Tom Chock is requesting a variance from the setback provisions for the garage for his apartment house at 801 West 3rd Street, Lot 5, Block 42. Currently, this area is zoned as R-2, Single and Two -Family Residential, and the setback from the sideyard is 10' according to the City's ordinance. Mr. Chock would like to build his garage within 5' of the west property Ane, and as a result, is requesting a variance of 51. Mr. Chock does own the property to the west and naturally has no objection with this setback variance. As a result of Mr. Chock's ownership of the property to the west, the Q Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend approval of the variance request. Again, as in the previous tiu•ee agenda items, a variance request requires a hearing at the City Council level and W51a vote for approval. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval or denial of variance request. REFERENCESs Soo enclosed map. 2 4-A. Public Hearin¢ - Proposed use of Federal Revenue Sharing Funds In 19799 Monticello expects to receive $89,036 in Federal Revenue Sharing money. According to Federal Revenue Sharing regulations, it is necessary to hold a public hearing to allow input from the citizens as to possible uses of Federal Revenue Sharing Funds. It should be pointed out that the purpose of the hearing is just to solicit citizens input and another hearing is required when the budget is adopted to allow further input and an actual deter- mination of the use of Federal Revenue Sharing funds. POSSIBLE ACTION: No action is necessary other than just to document the comments received at this hearing. 2A F,?J -7 � 5. Consideration of Rezoning, Request from R-1 to R-3, Lot 5. Block 1, River- side Addition - John Sandberg. u Mr. John Sandberg is requesting that the above lot, which is 109,000 sq. ft., be rezoned from R-1 (Single Family) to R-3 (Medium Density Residential). Mr. Sandberg has indicated that the reason for the request is to allow for a four to five unit luxury apartment building sometime in the future. According to Mr. Sandberg, his intention is not to start right away on the apartment project, but to be able to know whether or not it can be built so that as he sells off the surrounding property, he can notify prospective property owners that there will likely be an apartment building on this particular lot. It should be noted that Mr. Sandberg's reason for asking for an R-3 zoning is that this particular zone does allow a four or five unit apartment complex to be built as a permitted use and does not require the renewal of a condi- tional use permit as would rezoning to an Rr2 which is a Single and Two - Family Residential Zone. However, Mr. Sandberg has indicated he would be willing to sign an agreement whereby he would put a covenant on the land such that no greater than a five -unit apartment complex could be situated on the land. Reason for this covenant would be to assure the abutting property owners that even though it was zoned to an R-3 zone which would normally allow up to 12 unit apartment houses as a permitted use, that on this particular lot there would only be situated at most a four or five unit apartment complex. Should the City Council feel that the covenant is one provision that should be pursued further, it could consult legal counsel. However, if it does feel that the area is proper for anything up to twelve units, no covenant is necessary or in a reverse situation, that four unite would be entirely too much for the area, it could deny the request. Q At the Planning Commission's last meeting, there were several property owners J objecting to the rezoning request. Primary reason for the opposition ,Vwas,./►1 that the property owners felt that they had built in a single family r - dential zone and the area should *?r:-:..: as single family. It should be noted that public ha P^a,gs for rezoning requests are hold at the Planning ,-Commigam_'_;,, level. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend denial of the rezoning request to R-3. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval or denial of rezoning request. V Av r� REFERENCES: See enclosed map depicting area. i 6. Consideration of Ordinance Amendment rertardina Salvage and/or Junkvards. Currently, Monticello Ordinance Section 10-3-2-(M) requires all junkyards and/or salvage yards to be in an industrial district and effectively screened. This section goes on to require that all non -conforming junkyards and/or salvage yards shall be discontinued after one year unless they are brought into compliance with this ordinance section. i -3- It should be pointed out that this particular provision was adopted along with the entire zoning ordinance in July of 1975. This particular provi- sion was never specifically discussed, and it wasn't the intention of the City of Monticello to amortize out junkyards and/or salvage yards within one year after the date of the ordinance. In order to rectify the situation, the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello called for a hearing to amend the provisions of this ordinance section requiring that all non -conforming junkyards and/or salvage yards will be allowed to continue as non -conforming use provided that an effective,_ screen is put up. In reviewing the State Statutes relative to junkyards and/or salvage yards, it was found that monies were available from state and federal funds to effectively screen any junkyard or salvage yard that met the following criteria: A. Within +} mile of a state trunk highway. B. Visible from a state trunk highway. C. Zoned other than commercial or industrial. If these provisions are met, state and federal monies will be utilized to effectively screen only that portion of the ,Junkyard or salvago yard that is visible from the trunk highway. State and federal monies will be used to acquire an easement from the property owner and to construct a fence at the cost of the state and federal government. There are two property owners in the City of Monticello, Harold Ruff and Edgar Klucas, who meet the criteria indicated above and they are both willing to work with the state and federal government in allowing those agencies to erect the fence. However, as indicated, state and federal monies will only be used for that portion of the junkyard nr swage yard that is visible from the trunk highway, and if the City would require completely fencing the entire junkyard or salvage yard, monies would not be available for this type of fence. Additionally, it should be pointed out that the State Department of Transportation indicated they will not put up an effective screen fence for the two property owners indicated until such time as the City of Monticello would amend ito ordinance to allow the present junkyards or salvage yards as permitted lawful non -conforming uses rather than the present ordinance which indicates that these uses must be amortized out. Reason for this is that the State Department of Trans- portation does not want to spend any funds for a use that will be eventually grandfathered out. In reviewing the proposed amendment with the property owners, their main concern was for the fence that was to be erected for the balanco of their salvage or junkyards that was not visiblc from the trunk highway. Both property owners indicated that a fence would be a financial burden to them if they had to pay for it themselves. At the first public hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission decided to refer the issue of the City requiring fencing to be installed for the entire junkyard or salvage yard to our City Attorney. Our City Attorney felt that the issue was quite a complicated one and could be a lengthy matter that could ultimately go to the courts to be resolved. He indicated just to come uN with a definitive answer would require a lot of research and it could involve several thousands of dollars in attorney fees and oven if the City did decide to require - 4 - a fence for that portion of the junkyard that isn't visible from the trunk highway, the case could go to court and the court could possibly overrule the City. As a result of reviewing the statements made by our City Attorney, and also in light of the fact that the junkyard or salvage yards were brought into the City of Monticello through annexation and were apparently originally permitted uses, the Planning Commission voted 3 to 1 to amend the City of Monticello ordinances to grandfather in all existing Junkyards as lawful, non -conforming ss, but not require any screening on the part of the property owner. Furthermore, they went on record in the motion as requesting that the City Council send a letter to the property owners to have them voluntarily comply with fencing. It should be pointed out that the one opposition vote was not so much opposed to not requiring 4 a fence, but he did not think it was appropriate to send a letter asking 4 for voluntary compliance with something that the City had no apparent power to regulate. ( POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval or denial of amending ordinance as presented. REFERENCES: See enclosed ordinance amendment. 7. Consideration of Aaoroval of Aouraisals for Easements for 1978-1 Improve- ment Prolect. At a previous meeting, the City Council approved of obtaining appraisals for the easement necessary for the 1978-1 Improvement Project. Initially, you may recall, it was necessary to obtain four easements from Mr. Harold Ruff, Mr. Tim Genung and Mr. Wally Houle and Mr. Gordy HnobmA, a4 p result of the elsmanation of a portion of the storm sewer, it is necessary now only to obtain easements from Harold Ruff and Tim Genung. Enclosed, you will find a map depicting a rough layout of the collector road through Country Club Manor with a termination point on the easterly side at Elm Street. As you can see by the map that the areas depicted in red and green are the necessary easements to be obtained from Mr. Harold Ruff and Mr. Tim Genung. Enclosod, you will also find the appraisals done by Mr. John Sandberg relative to the easements and the Harold Ruff property was appraised at $1,500 with the Tim Genung property at $4,600. Mr. Sandberg did mention that since the proposed collector road as depicted in the map would leave Mr. Tim Genung with an unbuildable parcel to the north of the collector road, that this area could possibly be a basis of negotiation with Ph•. Harold Ruff in trading that triangle portion for the triangle portion to be obtained from Mr. Harold Ruff. It should be pointed out that the entire area indicated in green was used as the basis for the appraisal of Mr. Tim Genung's property. The procedure would be that if the appraisals were approved, the property owners would be approached with the appraisal figura and asked that they be accepted by the naxt Council meeting. Decisions of the effected pro- perty owners would be brought back to the next Council meeting for final approval by the City Council. QPOSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of offering property owners appraised value \p for the easements indicated. Council may want to consider N, the offering of the exchange of land as indicated in the supplement above to Mr. Harold Ruff. REFERENCES: Enclosed map depicting area plus Sandberg Realty's letter of August 22, 1978 relative to the appraisals. 8. Consideration of Aooroval of Taxi Cab License. Hoglund Bus Company, Inc. is requesting a taxi cab license to operate in the City of Monticello. According to an application filed by Hoglund Bus, Ino., the vehicle that would be used would be a 1976 Plymouth 4 -door Sedan, the hours of operation would be from 7:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. Monday through Friday, and Saturday from 9:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. Additionally, proof of liability insurance has been furnished in accordance with Monticello Ordinance Section 3-5-4 which governs the licensing of taxi cabs. Annual taxi cab fee is $25.00 for each and every vehicle to be licensed. �o POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of license approval. REFERENCES: Monticello ordinance section 3-5-1 through 3-5-9. 9. Consideration of Calling for a Sale of'General Obligation Imarovement Bonds to Finance 1978-1 Iamrovement Prolect. King Forness, of Springsted, Inc., will be at our meeting on Monday night to review the possible sale of general obligation bonds to finance the Enclosed, please find a sheet with computations indicating that the total financing needs for the 1978-1 Improvement Project will approxi- mate $1,400,000, and it should be pointed out that this figure does not include capitalized interest. Springsted, Inc. is preparing a letter to the City Council of Monti cello, which will be hand -delivered either late Friday night or early Saturday morning,which will indicate the amount of capitalized interest. Furthermore, in talking with King Forness of Springsted, Inc., he has indicated that the call for the sale of the general obligation bonds will be based on a 7 to 9 year payback. He indicated this would be recommended since the assessments are going to be collected over a 5 -year period, and the extra number of years would allow for the possibility of some of the properties being delinquent. Furthermore, it should be pointed out that the assessments would be sot up such that the first year collectible will be 1980 instead of 1979. Reason for this is that the project will not actually be completed until 1979 at which time a hearing will have to be hold and then the collections will be set up commencing with 1980. Tentativoly, King Forness indicated a possible sale data of September 21, 1978, which is a Thursday. This should also be included in the material that Springsted, Inc. will be preparing. - 6 - Phone 7957711 Dp Me,,. 39757�j Gifry of Vonti'Al. 250 East Broadway MONTICELLO, MINN. 55362 � / To:0 12i ti�YG►v K /l�i.v pato 5-/;7,P FROM: Gary Wieber, City Administrator SUBJECT: h /B"--wl -r 1J11J4 MESSAGE: !�/o.�s yi-. '4'rr+n4f9r Y✓ r10-i- 0410/'Er 4-irD„1/6 S rrrs/le+U/,yam � /.I / /: /.'.wwwv ^ .��Q/�'r .S ernrO .��/rw ',�✓ /-I r /N 7 i/ Gi r9Rls 7 61+47 White - Mailing Capy Yellow - Filo Copy ` POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of calling for bids on the sale of the general obligation bonds to finance the 1978-1 Improve- ment Project. REFERENCES: Enclosed computation sheet. Springsted, Inc. material will be delivered to your homes Friday night or Saturday. 10. Consideration of Soliciting Quotes for Shelvine. This item has been on the agenda several times, and Loren Klcin, our Building Inspector, has gone over the complicated plans and specifications that were compiled by the Great River Regional Library System. As you may recall, this was brought up on our agenda at the last meeting, and it was requested to simplify these plans and specifications so that more bidders could be attracted. Loren Klein has simplified the plans and specifications and has also consulted with Gene Walters, City Councilman, and Mrs. Phyllis Burbank, Librarian, as to the specifications themselves. Mrs. Burbank has indicated she would desire to have the following sections of shelving: 2 - 81 long sections 101 high 1 - free standing shelving section 8181, long and 72 high. Loren has indicated that the above shelving will cost approximately $600 and $800 respectively for the sections indicated above. Initially it was felt that it may be best to budget a portion of shelving for 1979, l out I feel it might be better now to get all the shelving this yrsr �\ rather than go through the complicated procedures to budget half this year and the other portion in 1979. This also would result in more competitive bids. \ POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of soliciting for quotes on library shelving. �1 REFERENCES: Copy of the simplified plans and specifications are available \` for review in the Building Inspectors office. 11. Consideration of Amending Policy for Processing Variance Requests on Certificate of Occupancies. According to the Monticello City ordinance in which the uniform building code has been adopted,by reference, all buildings require a certificate of occupancy. Although not specifically a part of the ordinance, policy has been that any variance request from the certificate of occupancy be channelled through the City Council of Monticello. In reviewing this matter with the Building Inspector, I believe this may be unnecessary in some particular cases, specifically, in those cases where the building is completed except for landscaping and parking lot provisions. Since we do, by ordinanco, require a bond for those uncom- pleted portions of landscaping and parking lot, it would appear that these would be two instances whereby the Building Inspector could issue a certifi- cate of occupancy with the variance without going through the procedural steps of getting City Council approval. Obviously, the Building Inspector is still responsible to the City Council, but the point of the change would be to make the process simpler than what it hoe boon in the past. - 7- Almost all of the commercial buildings that have been occupied within the last year have had to request a variance from this certificate of occupancy, and I believe without exception the variance request has been approved. In marry instances, it has been necessary to hold a special meeting for the Council or an individual will request to be on the agenda when it is too late for the next meeting and it has appeared to be somewhat of a hardship. FOSSLE ACTION: Consideration of adopting policy whereby the Building Inspector could issue a certificate of occupancy in cases where the only variance necessary is that of landscaping and/or parking. It should be pointed out that the uniform building code does not have any provision for a procedure n to go for a variance for a certificate of occupancy and normally these can be approved by the Building Inspector. 12. Consideration of Making an Offer on House Behind City Hall. Enclosed, you will find an appraisal from Mr. John Sandberg relative to the Alberta Hill residence at 211 Palm Street, which is right behind the new City Hall. As you recall, at a previous meeting the Council authorized the obtaining of an appraisal for possible consideration. You might want to note that I have had another conversation with Mrs. Hill approximately one month ago, and she indicated that her asking price would be in the neighborhood of $50,000. PREFERENCES: SSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of making an offer on the Alberta Hill residence. Enclosed August 22, 1978 letter from John Sandberg outlining the appraisal for the property. 13. Consideration of Granting More Time to Make Housing Code Repairs. Mr. Tom McCauley has purchased the old bowling alley building from Mr. Ken Springborg. Mr. McCauley has also assumed the responsibility of makd ng the repairs required to the building by the Building Inspector when a 'iniform Housing Code Inspection was made in July. A situation that is present is that Mr. McCauley will need more time than the remaining 30 days allowed to complete these items. (See enclosed list). Possibly, as Appeals hoard, you could grant an extension of time on these items. For instance, possibly 60 more days, or until October 31, 1978 on all items except N11 and #21, and allow him until June 30, 1979 on those two items. Mr. McCauley would like to wait until spring for those two items to be able to assure obtaining a contractor to complete putting Btucco on the exterior and painting and also, since it would be more financially feasible, since the exterior work is somewhat expensive. Mr McCauley would repair the siding and other exterior items before winter, but would rather wait until spring and replace the exterior with new product. - 8 - POSSIBLE ACTION: Approve or deny the request for an extension. REFERENCES: See enclosed order to repair substandard conditions. 14. Consideration of Avproval of Final Pavment to Kenco. Inc. on 1977-2 Improvement Project. Kenco, Inc. has submitted a final payment request for $14,635.66 for the above referenced project. Our engineers recommend that this final amount be paid. It should be noted that all lien waivers have been received from Kenco relative to the project. Total project cost was $126,801.96. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval of final payment. - 9 - It is hereby ordained by the City Council of Monticello to amend Ordinance Section 10-3-2-(M) as follows: REFUSE: Passenger automobiles, station wagons and trucks not currently licensed by the state, or which are be- cause of mechanical deficiency incapable of movement under their own power, parked or stored outside for a period in excess of thirty (30) days, and all materials stored outside in violation of the City Ordinance are considered refuse or junk and shall be disposed of. No lurk vard m�y continue as a non -conforming use for more than one (1) year after the effective date of this Ordinance, except that a .funk yard may continue as a non -conforming use in an industrial district if within that period it is comoletely enclosed within a building. fence, screen planting or device of such hei4t so as to screen co�letely the operations of the .funk Yard. Plane of such a building or device shall be auproved oY the Citv Planning Commission before it is erected or put into place. The piling of hunk in Yarda in all residential districts shall be considered to be a non- conforming use and shall be removed within_ a nerind cf three , after the effective date of this Ordinance. Underlined portion deleted. Ordinance amendment adopted this 26th day of August, 1978. ATTEST: C. 0. Johnson, Mayor Gary wieber, City Adm. COrdinance Amendment p 6 COMPUTATION FOR BONI) SALE, 1978-1 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Bid Northdale Constr. $1054450 Awarded Contract 5-21-78 Mtg. Contingency 10% 105445 $1159895 Indirect Costs 20% 231979 Bond Requirements $1391874 Pcr Page PR -19 O -S -M Report (5-8-78) Contingency 10% Ad Valorem Pnrt.i.m 11.2% 'I()'1'A L Assessment Portion 88.8% r $141929 14193 $IT 1391874 $123575= MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL REMLAR MEETING August 28, 1978 - 7:30 P.M. Members present: C. 0. Johnson, Dan Blonigen, Arve Grimsmo, Gene Walters, Philip White. 1. Public Hearing - Consideration of Variance on Fence Height Limitation - Gus Hammer. Mr. Gus Hammer requested a variance to allow a 6' high fence to be erected on his property to within 20' of the front property line. Mr. Hammer's house is located approximately 36' from his front property line, and he requested that the fence be allowed to within 20' of the property line. Mr. Hammer requested that he be allowed to extend the fence 8' closer to the property line than his neighbor's house setback is in order to provide more privacy from the abutting residence. Monticello ordinances state that no fence shall exceed 3' in height when located in front of the principal building on a lot. Because the location of the fence requested by Mr. Hammer would not seem to obstruct any view of the neighbor duo to the existing amount of trees on the property line, a motion was made by D. Blonigen, seconded by P. White and unanimously carried to approve the variance for a 6' high fence to be erected to within 20' of the front property line for Mr. Gus Hammer. 2. Public Hearing - Setback Variance Request by Duane Ralanen. Mr. Duane Rajanen, of 412 E. 3rd Street, requested a variance to allow a garage to be set back 5' from the easterly property line. Current ordinances require a 10' setback, and Mr. Rajanen would like to remove the existing garage and add on a double garage to within 5' of the property line. Hearing no objections from the abutting property owners, motion was made by P. White, seconded by D. Blonigen and unanimously carried to approve the 5' setback variance for Mr. Diane Rajanan. Public Hearing - Variance Request from Minimum Lot Size Requirements by Darwin Straw. Mr. Darwin Straw requested a variance to allow the eubdi.vision of Lots 1, 2 and the 4 of Lot 3, Block 10, into two lots, one lot being 66' x 165' and the other lot being 99' x 165'. Currently, there is an oxiating home and garage located on Lot 1 and the WJ of Lot 2, and as a result of a dio- cussion and recommendation from an abutting property owner, Mr. Straw was agreeable to creating two lots, one lot being 75' x 165' and the other lot being 90' x 1651. The recommendation to make the one lot 75' wide would Cplace it within 1' of the axieting garage located an the other lot. 6 MinuLes - 8/i3/78 Ron Peters, a neighbor, indicated that he would be satisfied with a 75' lot provided that the remaining 90' lot would not be subdivided someday in the future into two additional parcels. Mr. Peters was informed that the remaining 90' lot would again need variances from City ordinances should Mr. Straw decide in the future to ever try and subdivide this lot. Motion was made by D. Blonigen, seconded by A. Crimsmo and unanimously carried to approve the subdivision request creating two lots, one being 75' wide and the other being 90' wide for Mr. Darwin Straw. 4. Public Hearing - Variance on Setback for Garage by Tom Chock. Mr. Tom Chock requested a variance from the setback provisions for a garage at his apartment house at 801 N. 3rd Street, Lot 5, Block 42. Current ordinances require a 10' sideyard setback and Mr. Chock requested a to be allowed to build within 5' of the Nest property line. Since Mr. Chock owns the abutting property to the west and no other opposition was heard, a motion was made by A. Grimsmo, seconded by D. Blonigen and unanimously carried to approve the 5' setback variance for the garage on Mr. Chock's property. 5. Public Hearing on the Proposed Use of Federal Revenue Sharing Funds. In 1979, Monticello expects to receive approximately $89,000 in revenue_ sharing money. According to Federal Revenue Sharing regulations, it .:as necessary to hold a public hearing to allow input from the citizens as to the possible uses of these Federal Revenue Sharing funds. No comments were indicated by the citizens present at the meeting, and therefore, no action was taken by the Council. Another hearing will be required when the budget is adopted to allow further input and actual determination of the use of the 1979 Federal Revenue Sharing funds. 6. Consideration of Rezoning Request from R-1 to R-3. Lot 5. Block 1, Riverside Addition by John Sandberg. Mr. John Sandberg reuesLed that Lot 5, Block 1, Riverside Addition be rezoned from R-1 Single Family) to R-3 (Medium Density Residential). Mir. Sandberg indicoLed that the reason for the request was to allow for a four or five -unit luxury apartment building to be built some time in the future. Mr. Sandberg indicated to the Council that he would be willing to put covenants on the land that would limit the number of units to say four or five, and also place covenants that would limit the number of people that could be living in each unit to only two people. At the Planning Commission's last meeting there were several property owners present objecting to the rezoning request. The primary reason for the opposition was that the property owners felt that they had built in a single family residential zone and that the area should remain as single family. - 2 - 0 Minutes - 8/28/78 Virgil LaFond, a neighboring resident, spoke for the neighborhood group and indicated that they were all still opposed to the rezoning and indi- cated that the area should remain single family and that an apartment ` complex would hurt the neighborhood and the surrounding beauty of the river property. Roy Lauring also spoke in opposition to the rezoning and suggested to the Council that the City should consider buying this lot from Mr. Sandberg and create a natural environment park for the people of the City. Mr. Sandberg asked the Council for an extension of time to enable hin to present further information such as plans on the building and also to enable him to consult with the neighborhood residents as to the type of building he proposes. Mr. Sandberg indicated that the extension of time would allow him the chance to show the neighbors what type of building he would be proposing and hopefully to change their mind against an apartment building in the neighborhood. By consensus of the City Council, the item was tabled for 60 days with any new plans, etc. being presented to the Planning Commission before Council consideration. 7. Consideration of Ordinance Amendment regard:Lns Salvage and/or Junkyards. Currently Monticello ordinances require all junkyards and/or salvage yards to be in an industrial district and effectively screened. This section goes an to require that all non -conforming junkyards and/or salvage yards shall be discontinued after one year unless they are brought into compliance With this ordiiiance section. In order to rectify this situation, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to amend the provisions of this ordinance section requiring that all non -conforming junkyards and/or salvage yards be allowed to continue as nom -conforming uses provided that an effective screen is put up. In reviewing the State Statutes relative to junkyards and/or salvage yards, it was found that monies were available from state and federal funds to effectively screen in any junkyard and/or salvage yard that met the following criteria: A. Within one-half mile of a state trek highway; B. Visible from a state trunk highway; C. Zoned other than commercial or industrial. State and federal monies will only be used to fence to that portion of a junkyard that is visible from the trunk highway, mid if the City required fencing of the entire junkyard, monies would not be available for this type of fence. Additionally, it was pointed out that the State Department of Transportation would not put up an effective screen fence unless the City of Monticello would amend its ordinances to allow the present junnk- yards as permitted, lawful, non -conforming uses, rather than the present ordinance which indicates that those uses must be amortized out within one year. — 3 — Minutes - 3/22/78 After consulting with the City's Attorney regarding the issue of requiring junla•ards to be screened entirely, the Attorney indicated that the City may not be in a position to require property owners to construct their own fence. As a result of the recommendations made by the City Attorney, the PlauninE Conraission voted to amend the City Ordinances to grandfather in all existing junkyards as lawful non -conforming uses, but to not require any screening on the part of the property owner. Mr. William Hoffman, representing Ruff Auto Parts, indicated that their client would be agreeable to the ordinance change, and also indicated that screening the entire junkyard would be prohibitive as far as costs are concerned. Motion was made by P. White, seconded by A. Grimsmo and unanimously carried to &.nand ordinance section 10-3-2--M1 to allow any existing junkyards as lawful non-confonmdng uses within at R-1 sone. See Ordinance Amendment 3-25-75 (%159). S. Consideration of Approval of Appraisals for Easements for 1978-1 Improve- ment Project. At a previous Council meeting, the City Council approved the obtaining of appraisals for the easements necessary to complete the 1978-1 Improve - Ment Project. Appraisals were obtained by John Sandberg relative to the easements on the Harold Ruff Property and the Tim Canting Proporty. Mr. Sandberg appraised the easement at $1,500 for Mr. Harold Ruff, and at $4,500 for Mr. Tim Genung. A motion was made by P. White, seconded by A. Grimemo to offer the pro- perty owners the appraised amounts per the appraisals received from Mr. John Sandberg for the easements on the 1978-1 improvement Project. Voting in favor: P. White, A. Grimemo, C. Johnson, G. Walters. Opposed: D. Blond gen. 9. Consideration of Approval of Taxi Cab k.icense. Hoglund Bus Company, Inc. requeated n taxi cab license to of -rate within the City of Monticello. The application filed by Hoglund Bus indicnted that the hours of operation would be from 7:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. Monday Lhrounh Priday, and Saturday from 9:00 A.M. to 1,:00 P.M. Motion was made by P. White, seconded by D. Blonigen and unanimously carried to approve the Lnxd cab license for Hoglund Bus Company. 10. Gonsi.:crntion of Call.ina for n Solo of Cenoral Oblinntion Improvement Bonds to Finance 197n-1 Improvement Project. t;Lap Forness, of Springsted, Inc., reviewed with the Council hie recom- men;iations for the sale of General Obligation Banda to finance the 1973-1 Improvement Project. a Minutes - 8/28/78 Mr. Porness recommended that the bonds be financed over an eight-year period. He indicated that this would be recommended since the assessments ( were going to be collected over a five-year period of time, and that the 4 extra number of years would allow for the possibility of some of the properties being delinquent on payments. A motion was made by G. Walters, seconded by A. Grimsmo to call for bids on the sale of General Obligation Bonds to finance the 1978-1 Inprovement Project in the amount of $1,475,000.00. Voting in favor: G. Walters, A. Grimsmo, C. Johnson, P. White. Abstaining: D. Blonigen. 11. Consideration of Soliciting Quotes for Shelving. Loren Klein, Building Inspector for the City, completed simplified plans and specifications for the following sections of shelving to be used at the Library: Two (2) 81 long sections 48" high; and one (1) free-standing shelving section 818" long and 72" high. Mr. Klein indicated that the above shelving would cost approximately $600 and „300 respectively for the sections indicated. Councilman Blonigen felt that quotes should be received for both wood and metal shelving, as some libraries are using metal shelving. It was noted that the present library has all wood shelving, and it was felt that the reason wood specifications were prepared was that it would match the existing shelving at the library, but a motion was made by Phil WhiLe, seconded by G,ne Walters and unanimously carried to solicit quotes for the above library shelving in either wood or metal. 12. Consideration of Amendiniz Policy for Processing Variance Requests on Certificates of Occunancv. Although not specifically part of the M1bnLlcello ordinances, the policy has been that any variance request from a certificate of occupancy be chwIneled through the City Council prior to iasualee. In revleri.ng the• past v:u•imrces ',hot have been granted by the Cowici] in regard to certificate of occupancy varianceo, it was recommended by the Building Inspector mid the City AdminisLrator that in those cases where the building is completed except for landscaping turd parking lot provisions, the policy should he changed to allow the BUIldizng Inspector the authority to issue the certificate of occupancy. It. was noted that Lilts charge in the policy would make the process simpler for someone needing a variance an the land- scaping or parking requiremenLs without Lhc necessity of holding a special meeting in some cases. It was the consensus of the Council that these types of variances should still be channeled through the Council mceLLnr,s, and as such, the policy Was left as is. -5- b 1dlautc5 - 0/46/'/3 13. Consideration of Makinr an Offer on the House Located Behind City Hall. Previously, the Alberta Hill residence at 211 Palm Street was offered for sale to the City in the neighborhood of $50,000. Mr. John Sandberg prepared ar. appraisal on the property for the City in the amount of $349500. Due to the large difference between the asking price and the appraisal price, a motion was made by D. Blonigen, seconded by P. White and unanimously carried to not make any counter-offer to Mrs. Alberta Hill regarding her home at this time. 14. Consideration of Granting More Time to Make Housing Code Repairs. Mr. Tom McCauley purchased the old bowling alley building from Mr. Ken Springborg. Mr. McCauley also assumed the responsibility for making repairs required to the building by the Building Inspector when a uniform housing code inspection was made in July. Mr. McCauley requested an extension of time to repair these items for 60 days, or until October 31, 1978 for all items listed per inspection report except items #11 and q21, which he requested be allowed until June 30, 1979. Mr. McCauley requested that these two items which are repairing the damaged aiding and painting of the wood surfaces on the exterior of the building be waived until spring to allow him to obtain a contractor to complete putting stucco on the exterior and also, since it would be more financially feasible at that time. Since the minor repairs relating to health and safety have been taken care of, motion was made by C. WalLcrs, seconded by D. Blonigen and unanimously carried to grcu)t Mr. McCauley a 60-doy extension on all items listed on the inspccLion report, and to also grant LuiLil July 1, 1979 for the completion of Lha exterior repairs on the building. (See Supplement 8-28-78 H1). 15. Consideration of Approval of Pinal Pavmant to Kenko. Inc. on 1977-2 Improvement Proiect. Kenko, Inc. submitter: a final payment request In the amount of $14,635.66 for the above referenced project. City Digineer, John Badalich, recomrendo d that this final paymentbe paid. Mo Lion way made by C. Walters, seconded by A. Grimsmo and unanimously carried to approve the final payment amow,.L of $14,635.66 to Kenko, .Inc. on the 77-2 project. This final pay - Ma L amount includes $4,867.11, of quantity extras over the original contract amount malring a total contract paid of $126,801.96. 16. Aporoval of Bills. IMLion. was mach by 1). Illnnllgar, a:road;I by P. WIr1Lii and unfuii_m-,u::ly cr�rr•1••il Lu nppllow; Lha billy for Aul,uuf. 197+1 as p1':u0nL-:d. :;uphf•�mnu), Ft_?Fi-'/ti ll:•). 17. Aourov.d of Minutes. The MinuLes of Lila City Cowreil mcoti.ngs held August 11„ 1978 and „sgusL 21, 1978 were approved as presented. -6- Scl ,-W i'u Cco — G/—/ I% 13. Consideration of Accepting Quotes on Chemical Treatment Equipment for Sewer Plant. John Badalich, City Ehgineer, presented to the Council a summary of the quotations received for the installation of chemical feed equipment at the municipal wastewater treatment plant. The low quotes for the equipment received totalled $15,930.78. It was recommended by the City Engineer and the Public Works Director that this equipment be purchased to enable the City to meet the sewage discharge permit requirements as regulated by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Mr. Badalich also indicated that over 2/3's of the cost of this equipment can be utilized later when the plant is upgraded in a couple of years. Motion was made by G. Walters, seconded by P. White and unanimously carried to accept the low bids received for the installation of the chemical feed equipment in the amount of $15,930.78. (See Supple- ment 8-28-78 #3). 19. Discussion on Angle Parking Along Walnut Street. The City Administrator and Public Works Director were asked to review the possibility of angle parking in front of the Golden Valley Furniture Store and the Monticello Clinic along Walnut Street between Broadway and River Street. The present perpendicular parking does create conges- tion and the City Administrator and Public Works Director were asked to / report back to the Council on the feasibility of making this angle l_ parking along this one block. Meeting adjourned. Rick 'sol:-stelY.r R',;/hs - 7- 6.