City Council Agenda Packet 11-13-1978AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
November 13, 1978 - 7:30 P. M.
Mayor: C. 0. Johnson
Council Members: Dan Blonigen, Arve Grimsmo, Gene Halters, Phil White.
Meeting to be Taped.
Citizens Comments.
Consideration of Rezoning Request from R-1 to Rr3 - Lot 5, Block 1,_
Riverside Addition - John Sandberg.
Y
i' 2. Consideration of Variance Request from Parking Lot Curb Barrier
Requirements - Silver Fox hotel.
/3. Consideration of Approving Surety Arrangements for Oakwood Industrial
Park Partnership on the Improvement of Dundas Road.
J4. Consideration of Policy Relative to Four -Fifths (4f5's) Voting Re-
// quirements.
✓5• Consideration of Variance for Off -Premise Sign - Electro Industries.
✓6. Report from Civil Defense Director - Doug Pitt..
Q0� ✓1. Consideration of Adoption of 1976 Edition of Uniform Building Code.
8. Consideration of Requiring Registration for Rental Units in the City
of Monticello.
QConsideration of Extension of Time for a Portion of the 1978`1 Project.
4\ `0. Approval of Minutes - October 23, 1978 Meeting.
Ir\ '/11. Unfinished Business.
J12. New Business.
t.r+M-w.�-.-.-w-w�r r+-.�r�++�r�a�►�+•.M+wwwa w�
0TE: Appeals Board meets after conclusion of Regular Council meeting -
Stokes Appeal.
AGEtiDA SIJPPLE201T
1. Consideration of Rezoning Request from Rrl to R-3 - Lot 5. Block 1.
Riverside Addition - John Sandberg.
As you may recall, this item was brought before the City Council at
a previous meeting, August 28, 1978. At that time, the City Council
tabled a decision to allow Mr. Sandberg an additional 60 days to show
the neighbors the type of building he would be proposing, and hopefully,
to change their minds against an apartment building in the neighborhood.
Council action also was that any new information should be brought before
the City's Planning Commission.
I have talked to Mr. John Sandberg, and he has indicated that he is still
working on the information, and would like a further extension of time.
It should be pointed out that according to Monticello City Ordinances, if
e rezoning request were denied, the applicant could apply again, but
six months would be required to have lapsed before application can be
made again. Since this matter was continued, property owners within
350 feet have again been notified that this item will be on the Council's
agenda.
Eh closed, for your review, is the agenda supplement for August 28, 1978,
and also the Council Minutes of August 28, 1978, One correction should
be made is that the lot size was incorrectly read off of the plat, and
y L should be 69,000 square feet instead of 109,000 square feet.
qe POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval or denial of rezoning
request, or another extension of time. (Approval
would require 4/5's vote of the Council).
REFDiETIC Si Minutes of August 28, 1978 and Agenda Supplement pertaining
to this item for August 28, 1978.
2. Consideration of Variance Request from Parking Lot Curb Barrier Require-
ments — Silver Fox Motel.
At a previous meeting, this variance request was denied, but there was
discussion at the Council Meeting that the Council might possibly be
Creceptive to a variance with a particular time limit on it.
Agenda Supplement - 11/13/78
As you recall, the facts are as follows. Mr. Ed Larson, part-owner of
the Silver Fox Motel, requested a variance to allow the elimination of
curb barriers around his truck parking lot. Mr. Larson indicated that
the elimination of the curb barrier requirements in this area would allow
J for more maneuverability of the semi -trailers to get in and out of the
parking lot, especially during the busy season. Mr. Larson also stated
that the curb barriers recently installed have been damaged by the heavy
A0� trucks running over them.
I/ Mr. Larson would now like to request the same variance, but would be
agreeable to putting a time limit of up to 24 months on the variance
itself. Mr. Larson indicated that the reason for the request, in
addition to the items mentioned above, is that future expansion may
.V occur in the area In which the curb barrier is required.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval or denial of variance
request up to 24 months on parking lot curb barrier
requirements. (Variance needs L✓51s vote for -iryr.,vol).
3. Consideration of Approvina Suretv Arrangements for Oakwood Indu:.trl�,
Park Partnerahin on the Improvement of Dundas Road.
The Oakwood Industrial Park Partnership is proposing a surety arrange-
ment to cover the improvement of Dundee Road by submitting a note to
the bright County State Bank in care of the City of Monticello. This
r a� rangement would allow the City of Monticello to utilize the note for
13 times the amount of improving Dundee Road if the, project were not
completed to the satisfaction of the City.
Gary Pringle, our City Attorney, has reviewed this arrangement and he
feels there Is some concern relative to a conflict of interest between
the shareholders in Oakwood Industrial Park Partnership and Wright
County State Bank. As you may know, some of the principals of Wright
County State Bank are also partnere in Oakwood Industrial Park Partner-
ship.
When I reviewed Gary Pringle's concern with Dale Lungwitz, Dale assured
me this arrangement for the surety is the very same arrangement as a
letter of credit, and would secure the City since this note is being
guaranteed by Dale Pogatchnik, who is not a member of Oakwood Industrial
Park Partnership.
Enclosed, I am submitting a copy of a letter written by Dale Pogatchnik
10 to Gary Pringle guaranteeing the note to the City of Monticello.
Additionally, I will be talking to Gary Pringle for his further
Q comments on Dale Lungwitz's statement relative to the surety arrange-
#mant.
ti`' b
j POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of Accepting Surety Arrangement with
y Q Oakwood Industrial Park Partnership for the Improvement
y of Dundes Road.
REFERENCE: Ehelosed letter from We Pogatchnik.
- 2 -
Agenda Supplement - 11/13/78
4. Consideration of Policy Relative to Four -Fifths (4/5's) Voting Require-
ments.
The Monticello City Zoning Ordinances covering requests for re:onings,
variances and conditional use permits require a LV5's vote for approval
of the City Council.
This provision becomes a problem when one or more members of the Council
is missing, as it then becomes necessary to either have unanimous support
from the Council or if one vote goes against the applicant, there is no
war the request can be granted. It would seem to me that a better
war to handle this type of request is that when an issue of this nature
is brought before less than a full Council, the applicant would have
the prerogative of coming back to the Council at a later date to get
approval. This provision would only apply, of course, in cases where
the request was voted and approved upon by the members present, but the
y 4/5's vote was not possible. For example, this would be the case approv-
ing a variance or rezoning request that went in favor of the applicant
5 "3" to "0", or "3" to "1" In both of these cases under the present
P ordinance, the request would be denied, but it would be possible, if
there was a full membership, that a missing member or members could have
roved of the request, and the request actually would have received
\\. 5's approval.
\`
POSSIBLE ACTIONS Consideration of allowing applicant to bring request
for rezoning, variance and conditional use permits
back to the Council when initially defeated beccs:;�,
of a lack of a full membership of the Council.
5. Consideration of Variance for Off -Premise Sign - Electro Induatrirv-
This item is placed on the agenda contingent upon item Y. being
p approved.
n�
As you will recall, at the last City Council meeting, Bill Seefeldt of
Electro Industries, requested a variance to allow an off -premise sign
�O to be located an the Rod A Gun Club Property. This sign would measure
approximately 18" x 24" and stand approximately 8' high. Although
this variance request was approved on a 3 to 1 vote, it did not have
the necessary 4/5's vote to pass.
POSSIBLE ACTIONi Consideration of approval or denial of variance
request (variance request needs 4/5's vote for approval).
6. Report from Civil Defense Director - DouR Pitt,
Since Doug Pitt was unable, due to a conflict, to attend the last quar-
terly meeting, he requested that he be placed on the next available
agenda to discuss with the City Council various aspects of the Civil
Defense department, including additional warning sirens for Civil Defense.
POSSIBLE ACPIONi Like the Department Quarterly Meetings, this is merely
a report. However, specific action may come about as
a result of the report presented by Doug Pitt.
-3-
Agenda Supplement - 11/13/78
7. Consideration of Adoption of 1976 Edition of Uniform Building Code.
Enclosed, please find an October 23, 1978 memorandum from Loren Klein
relative to the adoption of the 1976 Edition of the Uniform Building
Code.
It should be noted that the recommended action would be to delete the
existing ordinances relative to the Building Code and to adopt a new
code. Additionally, according to the memorandum from Loren, the
following changes should be made:
1. Amendment to clarify two conflicting ordinances; one which
requires all parking lots to be hardsurfaced, and another one
which would exempt single and two family residences from that
requirement. A determination should be made as to which provi-
sion should be enforced, and the other provision should be
repealed.
2. Ordinance Section relative to the Uniform Eire Code should be
amended and should read instead of the 1973 Edition, the 1976
Uniform Fire Code.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of adoption of 1976 Edition of Uniform
�j Building Code, along with twoante amendments
outlined above.
REFERENCES: Memorandum from Loren Klein of October 23, 1978, and
8 Model adoptive ordinance.
Consideration of Reouiring Registration for Rental Unite in the Citv of
Monticello.
Enclosed, please find a memorandum from our Building Official detailing
�. tho reasons for suggesting a rental property registration system. Pri—
mary reasons are as follows:
1. Assurance that all rental properties would be inspected.
2. Provide for a systematic order.
3. Registration fee could be charged. In effect, people who benefit
would pay, rather than put this portion on general property taxes.
Loren has enclosed a sample ordinance modeled after the City of St. Cloudge
ordinance relative to this matter.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of adopting ordinance relative to the
registration of rental property.
R1'1*P1iIIdCiSr Phcloaed propos�a ordinan spared by Loren Klein modeled
r after the City (of oud. Proposed memo prepared by Loran
Klein relative to the issue.
- 4 -
M
Agenda Supplement — 11/13/78
9. Consideration of Extension of Time for a Portion of the 1978-1 Proiect.
Northdale Construction is requesting the City Council grant them an
extension of time from November 1, 1978 until Spring of 1979 for the
completion of concrete curb and gutter in Riverside Addition.
Reason for this request is the availability of concrete from their
supplier, Monticello Ready Mix. According to Northdale Construction,
the earliest they can get concrete is November 10, 1978, and this
is not a definite commitment. It should be noted that Northdale
is not asking for an extension of time on the entire project, and
they will keep to July 1, 1979 on the completion date for the entire
project.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of granting extension of time.
{A
— 5 —
14
TO: City Council
FROM: Gary Wieber, City Adndnistrator
DATE: November 13, 1978
SUBJECT: Agenda Item 3. - Surety Arrangement - Oakwood Industrial
Park Partnership on the Improvement of Dundas Road.
In reviewing the above matter further, our City Attorney, Gary Pringle,
contacted me this afternoon and indicated his opinion is that the
surety arrangement proposed by Oakwood Industrial Park Partnership
would secure the City of Monticello. This is somewhat contrary
to his initial reaction to the proposal, but in his review, Gary
Pringle felt this arrangement is better than a letter of credit,
and in fact is a letter of credit backed up by a real estate
mortgage.
Mr. Pringle indicated that one clause should be added to the
Development Agreement, and that is as follows:
�- "It is hereby agreed that the surety arrangement
for the improvement of Dundas Road will be made
available to the City of Monticello) and, if funds are
illegally withheld contrary to contractual arrange-
ments, any and all attorney fees and legal fees
involving litigation against Oakwood Industrial Park
Partnership will be taken out of aforementioned
security arrangement."
GW/ns
I
5. Consideration of Rezoning Request from R-1 to R-3. Lot 5. Block 1. River-
side Addition - john Sandberg.
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 Belle 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 R-2 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 unite, no covenant is necessary or in a reverse situation,
that four unite would be entirely too much for the area, it could deny the
1 request.
, 1�At the Planning Commissionve last meeting, there were several property owners
J objecting to the rezoning request. Primary reason for the opposition was
that the property owners felt that they had built in a single family resi-
dential zone and the area should remain as single family. It should bo
noted that public hearings for rezoning requests are held at tho Planning
-Commission level. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend
'P denial of the rezoning request to R-3.
(� POSSIBLE ACTIQiu Consideration of approval or denial of rezoning request.
I'
�V
� tie REFERENCES: See enclosed map depicting area.
1 6. Consideration of Ordinance Amendment reRardinR Salvage and/or Junkvards.
Currently, Monticello Ordinance Section 10-3-2-(N) 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 junkyardu and/or
salvage yards shall be discontinued after one year unless they are brought
into compliance with this ordinance section.
—3—
Minutes - 8/28/73
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. Grimsmo 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.
VIr. Tom Chock requested a variance from the setback provisions for a rarage
at his apartment house at 801 W. 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 West 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 was
necessary to hold a public hearing to allow input from the citizens as
to the possible uses of these Federal Revenue Sharing funds.
Ro 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 requested that Lot 5, Block 1, Riverside Addition
be rezoned from R -I (Single Family) to R-3 (Medium Density Residential).
Mr. Sandberg indicated that the reason for the request was to allow for
a four or fivo-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 mooting 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
C a single family residential zone and that the area should remain as
single family.
2 -
Minutes - 8/26/78
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 him 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. Mir. 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 chmige 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 reaardinR 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 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.
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 non -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 trunk 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 in that portion of a
junkyard that is visible from the trunk highway, and if the City required
fencing of the entire junkyard, monies would not be available for this
typo of fence. Additionally, it was pointed out that the State Department
of Transportation would not put up an effectivu screen fence unless the
City of Monticello would amend its ordinances to allow the present junk-
yards as permitted, lawful, non -conforming uses, rather than the present
ordinance which indicates that those uses must be amortized out within
one year.
-l-
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gary Wieber, City Administrator
FROM: Loren D. Klein, Building Official
DATE: October 23, 1978
SUBJECT: Adoption of 1976 Edition Uniform Building Code
On September 16, 1978, the newly adopted Minnesota State Building Code went into
effect within the State of Minnesota.
Because of the large number of changes to the CODE, it has been recommended by the
Department of Administration, Building Code Division, that the Municipalities who
have previously adopted the CODE repeal their previous code and adopt the new CODE.
We could also amend our present ordinance to adopt the changes, but because of the
numerous additional items and numerous deletions, it would be much less cumbersome
for our Council to abandon the old ordinance and substitute the new model adaptive
ordinance.
I have enclosed, for your information, a copy of the model adoptive ordinance the
City could use to adopt the new Minnesota State Building Code. As you can see, the
new building code incorporates by reference such codes as the Uniform Building Code,
the National Electrical Code, the Plumbing Code, etc.
You may want to note that in the model adoptive ordinance under Section 1, Sub -
Section C, that there are five (5) items that are not a mandatory part of the code,
but can be adopted by reference in this ordinance at the discretion of our
Council. It would be my recommendation as Building Official, that our Council
consider adopting the first four (4) items of this sub -section, and that they not
adopt item number five (5) dealing with Appendix "D" of the State Building Code
dealing with Building Security (SBC 4101.4110). This option provision deals with
mandatory locking of facilities, which are usually secured anyway, and at times
becomes cumbersome for the fire departments.
Additionally, you may want to note that the Building Code Amendments in our ordinance
4-1-2 are no longer acceptable as amendments to the State Building Code or the
codes it adopts by reference. Most of those amendments have, since the time of
their original adoption, become part of the State Building Code. Items such as the
provision in our ordinance 4-1-2, dealing with requiring hardaurfaced driveways
can be dealt with in our zoning ordinance. One example being in ordinance 10 -3 -5(D)-
(8) -(k). In that provision, we could remove the words "except in the came of single
and two-family dwellings". With those few words omitted from that sentence, not only
could we have added the hardeurfacing of driveways to our zoning ordinance, but we
could also remove a conflict of regulations we previously had in requiring hardaurfaeed
driveways in one area of our ordinance* and exenptin g it in another area.
Section 5-1-1 of Monticello Ordinances adopts the Minnesota Uniform Tire Code, 1973
Edition, and all amendments thereto. As of now, the 1976 Edition of the Minnesota
Unifrom Tire Code and its amendments have been adopted by the State of Minnesota,
and possibly we should make the language in our ordinance to show adoption of the
1976 Code, etc.
UX/no a 7
CM4PIER I
Sul Le I W, CODE
SECTION:
4-I.1: BUILDING COOL
4-1-2: OROAHI[ATIONAAND ENFORCEMENT
4-1-�: P[RHII$. IN$P(tTIGN! AND FCCA
FIRC ZDNL 0..1tT!
VIOL.TION! AND PCNALTI(!
4.1-0: Err[cTovc DATC Or OROINANCL
4.1-1:
BUILDING CODEI TM[ MINNt/OTA $TAT( BYILDIND CO OC.CO►• OI WHICH I! ON
PO
FILE IN TMC O//ICL Or TNC E1T♦ EL[RK. MA9 0[[N ADOPTED NT LAW7 1977.
CHAPTER
381 ASA UMIrORM OUILDINO CODC APPLICAOLC THROUONOUI INC STAT[. SUCH CODE
12
MEREST CONFIRMED AS THE BUILDING COO[ Or THECI TV Or MONT ICLL LO AND INCORPORATED
IN
THIS
ORDINANCE AE COMPLETELY AS or AET OUT IN FULL.
A.
THE
1976 EDITION Or INC STAT[ BUILDING CODC ADOPT! SV RCFER[rICE THE FOLLOWING
COD[!:
1.
1976 EDITION Or THE UNIFORM BUILDING COOL. ID[NTIf ILO AS Flsi."i
2.
1978 EDITION 0/ TNS NATIONAL ELCCTRIC Coot. IDENTIFIED AS NEC"i '
3•
1971 AMLRICAN NATIONAL STANDARD S►r[TI COOL root ELEVATOR$. OuNSVAITLII$.
ESCALATORS AND MOVING WALK$, 10[N71r ICD AO ANSI A17-1 - 1971 AND SUPPLLMCNT$.
/
;l
ANSI AI . u - Ig 2. ANSI A17.1S - 197i. ANSI A17.Ic - 197 ANSI A17.I0 - 1973.
YYY
ANSI Al�f.lL - 19;5. ANSI M 7.Ir - 197R, ANo A1451 A17.1D . 1976.
4.
1976 MINNESOTA PLUMSINO CODL. IOLNTI►ot0 AS MMD 120 THROUGH MMD 135•
5•
"FLOOD PKoorINO REDuo.wow$R. JUNC 1972. Orrice Or THL CHIEF EHGINLLRS.
U. S. ARMY.
6.
MINNESOTA MLATINO. VCNTILATIMO, AIR CONDITIONING AND RLrRIOt RATION COOL,
I., I.rILO •! SBC 1101 THROUGH SBC 8509'.
7.
"DOES IOM AND CVALUATION CRITLRI. FOR ENCRGV CONLCRVATION IN NEW BUILDING,
AODI TIONS AMD RCMODELDo E1L.
Of BUILDINGS AMC STANDARDS FOR CCR/AIN
ERISTIMG PUBLIC BUILDING$ . IOEN11r ICD as 2MEAR SLCTIOM 1.16001 THQCUGII
2MCAR SEclooN 1.16006. (SBC 6001 - 6006).
8.
STATC OF MOMME$OTA MOBILE MONC INSTALLATION STANDARDS 197 IDENTIVI[D AS
WAR
2MCAR 1.90450 INSTALLATIONS AND PLLATLD DCFINITIONS IN o.gD103-
9.
STANDARDS OF PLOTORMANCL FOR SOLAR CNCRGV SVATEMS AND SYSSVSTCMS APPLICD TO
EM[ROT NLto Or BUILDINGS. 1971 EDITION. IDEHTIrIco A! 214CAR 1.16101 IMROUGH
2MCAR 1.16107.
B.
IN
ADDITION TO INOSE ITCH$ LI$TLD ABOVC, CERTAIN APPENOICIL. STANDARDS AMO SuPPIL•
M.MTAL
MATLRI♦►$ RLrLRLHCLO IN 1149 CODE ARC N[RtOV ADOPTCO BY RCFCRCNCC AS PART
Or
INBUILDING COD$ Or iNL COTI Or MONTICELLO AND INCORPORATLD INTO THIS ORDINANCt
♦S
COM►LLTCLI AS or 291 OYT IM ►ULL. INCLYOLO BUT ARL NOT LIMITLO TO THE IOLIOWlN01
1.
It AL REOYIRLNCMI$ rOR FALLOUT NLLTt AS. IOCNTIrICO AS SBC APPtNDIA "A".
2.
VARIATIONS IN SNOW LOADS* IoCNllroto A$ SBC APPLNDI.
3-
1976 1.1MIro11M Bu1LO1NG COOL APPCNDIR CNAP/CRB 23. 35-
4.
MINNLSOTA PLuM$ING Coot APP[NOIE W.
e7
4_1-1 L•1.)
Z. INC FOLLOWING ADDENDICCS. STANDARDS ANC JUPPLCMCNTAL MA7EAIALS ARE NOT •N ANDATORY
M
PART Or THE CODE, BUT ARE ADOPTED BY .LrCRCNCE FON IHC .;ITT Of O'ITI:CLLOANL ARC
INCORPORATCO INTO THIS ORDINANCE AS CCMPLETELT AS If SET OUT IN rULL:
I. SB. APPENDI■ PC°. ABBREVIATION, AND ADCRCCSSCS Or 'CCMNICAL COCANIIAIIONS.
2. 1976 1bC APPENOIR. LMAPTCRS 13. 1 .. 1B. L8. liO, ' 1, .�7 ..0
1' MINNE30TA PLVMOING CODE APPCNOICL., A. C. D. r AN: r.
b. rL000 PRoorIND RCOULATIONS. :ECT IONS :01.2 THAOUGN 218....
L_1-2: ORGANIZATION AND CP£ORCEMENT: INC OR..ANIEATION Or THE BDILL—, .CPA&TKENT AND
CNFORCCMENT Of THE COD[ SMALL OC CONDUCTED WITHIN THE .V?,rLINCS C.TARLISMC.
ST .HAPTC■ 2 Of TMC UNIT RN BUILDING LOC: 1)16 EDITION. HC CODE SMALL Al Cvrc%cr,.
WITHIN INC INCORPORATED LIMITS OF INC LIT♦ Or MONTICELLO AMU ANY E.TRA'E-HITOPIAL LIMITS
PLOVITTED WY LAV. ERTRATERRIIORIAL LIMITi '.HALL BC ANY AREA. ..zo.PC"'CL' ON .,NINCOi-
IORATCD. OESILNATED UNDL- A JOINT -POWERS AG RCEMCNT CITE REV INTO %' INC -ITT Of
MONTICCLLO A"D ANY OTNCR TO WNSNI P�YI LLA GC CI T Y/COVN TY.
INC BUILDING OcP•RTMCNT SMALL BC 7110 DUILOIN'i LOLL DCPArrNCt.T OI TMC .ITY Cr MLNTICLLLO.
�Na AOM,N,j7RATl1E AUTHORITY 3MALL B[ A .T ATL Cl T1rlE Ii11ILCING Orrl:l AL 30 DES1G-
NATCO BY THT APPOINTIMO AUTHORITY. MC APPCIHIING P.I I,.'IT♦ .HALL OL TMC 1'Y ,^JNC1L
Or THE .ITY Or MONTI CELLO.
PERMITS, INSPCLTIONS AND rCES:
1. ML I1/YANG[ OV►[.HITS AHD CONDUCTION OF ..SP11TIONI SMALL SC AS 1-011.11)
r IN CHAP IS 3 Or IML UNIIORH VIJILDINO LOOC. TME PCRrIT rres SMALL SCI
TOTAL VALUATION Eu
$ 1.010 TO $500.00 $1.75
1501.00 TO $2.000.00 $1.75 FOR THE rIR31 1500.00
/LU/$.75 ro- [AC- ADDITIONAL
j 1010.00 on
FRACTION THEREOF.
TO AND INCLUDo NO $2.000.00.
$2.001.00 To $25.000.00 $15.00 FOR INC FIRST $2.000.00
PLUS $j.OD FOR EACH ADDITIONAL
$I.00D.OD OR r-ACTIOr TN[REOr.
TO AND INCLUDING 125,000.00.
$25.001.00 TO 150.000.00 $84.00 FOR INC FIRST 125.000.00
PLUS $2.25 FOR EACH ADDITIONAL
11.000.00 OR T-AETIoN TNc■Lo►,
TO AND INCLUDING 150.000.00.
1190.001.00 TO $100.000.00 1140.25 roe THE rIRst $50.000.00
►LW II. TOR [AEN AODIT IOMAL
II.000.W OB /BACTION THEREOF.
To AND INCLUDING 8100.000.00.
$100.001.00 To 1500.000.00 1215.25 roe THE rIRST 1100.000.00
►LVO 11.13 FOR EACH ABOITIONAL
11.000.00 ON r■ACTION TMeetor.
TO ANO INCLUDING $500,000.00.
$500.001,00 AND WP $665.25 roe TNe rIRST $500.000.00
PL Vf I.7S POR E•BM AOBITIOMAL
11.000.00 OR /A ACTION TMLRIOr.
2. SURCMABGKA IN ADDITION TO TNC PERMIT rEE1 e[OVIeEO 1r ITL. 1. ASOIII.
THE APPLICANT SMALL PAY • SYRCMA RAL IM TML AMOUNT Fl/CD Or LAV. THE
`AMOUNT GCOVIetO Or LAW SHALL O[ •Er1TT[0 •O Rl.U.." TO TML MINE/DTA
CDCP•BTMLMT OV L:.
0
r.
4..1-4
A
4_1-6
4-t-4; FIRE ZONE DISTRICTSS ALL A4EAS wITMIN THE CITY OT MONIICELLO SMALL
OC IN FIRE ZONE 03-
4-1-5- VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIESS: INC PENALTY DESCRIBED IN THE tA:I/ORM BUILDING
CODEI 1976 EDITION. CHAPTER Two. SECTION 205 SMALL BE IN AttPIN0 MITA
MINNESOTA STATUTtS 6W.D3/ vHiCH PROviDts TOR A MAX{NUN TINC Of SWO.OD 04
INPRISONNENT POR 90 DAYS. OR BOTH.
EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDINANCE: THE EFTCC?IVt DATE Of THIS O40INANCt
SMALL BE NOVCNBtR 131, 1978.
Ca
Z
V
TO: Gary Wicber and the City Council
FROM: Loren D Klein, Building Official
DATE: November 8, 1978
At the present time, there are 75 known apartm.nt buildings in
Monticello. Of these 75 known buildings, there are duplr.Xes,
triplexes and multi -family units (i.e., Bel Mar Apartments -
24 units, Ridgemount Apartments 45 units, Cedarcrest Housing
for the Elderly 38 units, etc.)
At present., the Building Inspector is designing a systematic
and annual procedure for i.nspecti.on of these apartments. one
method would be to require rental pr•uprrly registration. (here
are a few advantages to this method, which 3 hope to point nut.
F i-rst , Rental Property registral ion would be a bet ter• assurance
that the inspections would be affecting all the rental prop.•rties,
Since they arc all registered. Even for those who do not register
their property, there are some ways to insure registration
. aenttraI Iy.
second, the order in which the pruporlies were registered could
also .serve as a systematic order .in which they were .inspected,
vine a each registration wuuld be in numerical order.
Third, by charging a small fee on an annual basis, when the
r.gistrations are due, the cost of providing an inspector
could be paid for by the people who use the inspector's sery i ck s,
rather than by advalorem taxes. The people who benefit most,
the apartment owner, would pay.
Each year, preferably January, when the re-rcgistvation would
come due, the information on thecae properties could be updated, or
also, updating could be done at the owners request, at any time.
For properties that changed ownership during a registration year,
the fee would have to be negot.lated by the previous and new property
owners. Fo: example, if John Doo sold his apartment, house to Bill
Smith during July, there would not be a 50% refund to Mr Doe, and
a new 50% fee col.ltcted from Mr. Smith. Thin issue would have to be
resolved between those two affected people.
Most important from the Building Tn,,pettort x view, is that this
syst.•m, if adopted, would provide the barks fou syntematir inspections,
econ if no fco were c•hnrged, since numerical ordev of registrat iun
would be the order in which the property would be inspected.
1
The following information may be useful in making a determination
C
of whether or not a fee should be charged, and if so, how much.
C�
Thus far this year, the permit fees have averaged $1,121.20 pet-
month
ermonth income as oposed to a projected cost of approximately
$1,275.00 to operate the department. Next years projected cult
is $1,670.00, as compared to a projected income of $1,311.50 per
month.
If the suggested fee schedule were used for rental property regist-
ration, those fees; as you could see, would help to make up some of
the difference in the cost of the Housing and Building Departments
and the monies these departments generate, th..vuby reducing the
amount charged to ad valorem.
I am enclosing a copy of a sample ordinance that could be used to
implement the registration if adopted. This ordinance could be
used In part or in its entirety.
0
4-4-1
CHAPTER 4
RENTAL D'LTLLING REGISTRATION
4-4-2
SE, IION:
4_4_1: ADOPTION
4-4-2: DEFIN171ONS
4-4- : REGISIRA710N REQUIRED.
4_4- : ENFORCEMENT
4-4-}; APPLICABLE L.A.S.
4-4-U: PENALTY
CFFEL-IVC DAIS
4-4_1: ADOPTION: THE FOLLOWING RENTAL DWCLLING PC.157RATION ORDINANCE IS AN OR:INANCC
REQUIRING THE REGISTRATION OF ALL RENTAL PROPCRTY AND IMVOSINI: A RC:.STRATION
FEE FOR EACH UNIT OF THE RENTAL PROPERTY. INE COUNCIL OF TNC .1TY OF MONTICELLO NCSESY
ORDAINS THAT IT 13 THE PURPOSE OF THIS ORDINANCC TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC M[ALTM, SAFCTT
AND WCLFARC Or THE CITISEMS OF THE CITY Of MONTICELLO WHO HAVC AS THEIR PLACE Or ABODE.
• DWELLING UNIT OR ROON fUgNISMCD TO THEN FOR THE PAYMENT Or A RENTAL CMAROC TO ANOTHER.
FURTHCR. IT 15 THE INTCNTION Of THIS ORDINANCE THAT A PERMANCNT ✓ODE OF PROTECTING ANC
RCSJLATING THE LIVING CONDITIONS OF TMCSC C17IECNS OC CSTADLISHCD. A.D. FURTMCR TO
PAOVIUC A NC ANS TO RAI SC RCVCNUC OR FUNDS TO NCL► TNC CITY DEFRAY THE COSTS NECESTARY
F.fP INSPECTIONS AND CHfOPCENCNT OF THC UNIFORM HOUSING CODE.
DEFIN11IONS:
1. RENTAL PROPEgTy, A SINOLC FAMILY DWELLING, MULTIPLE OWELLINO, OR ROOMING
MOYSC. AS OCfINLD IM THIS ORDINANCE. OCCUPIED BY A PERSON OR PERSONS IN THE STATUS
GF TENANT.
2. .SHINGLE` FAMILT DW6LL-IND. AS USCG IN TH19 OADINANCC, THE TERM I:TINLLC FANILY-
DWELLINU" "CANS A BUILDING, Of ANY SIZE OR TVPC, OCCUPICO SIV ONE ••MILT IN THE
3T A TU5 OF TENANT.
3. _WNLTIPLS DV(LLING, AS USCD IN THIS ORDINANCE. INC TERM 'MULTIPLC LIWELLI:IS
MEANS A OUT "0"'0'
Of ANY SIE[ OR TYPO. OCCUPIED BY "DQE THAM ONE fA"ILY, CACM
IN TNC STATUS OF TCNAIIT. BUT DOCS NOT INCLUCC ROOMING HOUSC. AS CCf IN[D IN THIS
ORDINANCE.
4. lck&RT. ONE WNO NAS AS NIS PLACE Of ABODE A DWELLING UNIT ON P004 ITU411131190
TO NIM FOM PAYMENT Of A RCNTAL CNARCC TO ANOTHER.
5, OPERATE. AS USED IN THIS ORDINANCE, THC 'TERM 'OPCRATCM MEANS TO CHARGE A
RCNTAL CHARGE IOM TNC USE OT A SIMOLC FAMILY DWELLING OR A UNIT IN A MULTI/LL
DWCLLINo OM A SLEEPING MOOM IM A ROOMINO MOUSE.
G. UNIT• AS USCO IN THIS OOOINAMCC. INC TEAM "WIT" {MALL MOAN ANY MASITAOLC
ROOM OR aROYP OF ADUG owl 40 MASITAS►C ROOMS LOCATCO WITHIN A MULTIPLE DWCLLI"C
AND /OAMINO A OIMCLC CONPLEE WIIM fACILITICS WNICM ARC USCG OR INTCMOCU TO 3C
USCD FOR LIVING, SLCCPIr1O, COOKING AND EATING.
�. (IAp ITA'4E RDy"3 AS YSCO IN THIS OROIMANCC, INC TC'IM fH.31TASLL ROOM
31461.1 MCAN A ROOM OR CNCLOSCO .LOGO SPA,[ USCD 0�1 1'.TCNOED TO OC USCG fOw LIVING,
- L PING. COOR IND OM eATINO PURPOSES, C3CLUOING OATMROOMS. TOILCT ROOMS, LAUNDRIES,
PANTMICA, fOYERA, COMMUNICATING CORRIDORS, CLOSETS, STON48C APACCS. AND STAIRWAYS.
8. FfMILT. INC TERM °FAMILl" SMALL MCAN AN INDIVIDUAL OR TWO OR MORE PCRSONA
49LATCO BY BLOOD OR MA REI All
E.
9• PCRSON, THE TERM HPCRSONR SMALL "CAN ANY NATURAL PCASON. "if MCIRS. EICCU-
TORB. ADMINI3TRA"R.. OA ASAIGMS. AND ALSO INCLUDCR A VIEW. PARTNEASNIP OM COR-
POMATION. ITS OR TMCI• SUCCCSSOAS OR •3310113, OR INC AGENT Of ANY OF INC AFORESAID.
10. &g.'"a N9m'SL A BUILDING OR STRUCTURC PROVIDING A ROOM OA ROOMS IATLMOCL
FOA LAVIMO ANO OLL[PIMO TO PCR
SONS IN THC STATUS Of 1C116NT. 1"13 TERM SMALL IN-
C LUOC OGAROINO NOUSCA. LOOOIMO MOUSES, ,AATCRNITV HOUSES ANO SONORITY "OLSts,
OUT DOCS 1401 INCLUDC HOTCLS 00 MOTCLB LICENSED Or INC STATC Of MINNCOOIA.
4_4.2
11. SLECFING ROOM„ A ROOK OR CNCLOSCD FLOOR SPACE IN A ROOMING WOUSC. 41h CCf#NED
iN i041S O,p,"ANCL. USCO OF INYINOCO TO at USED 111"414/LY 9`116 ;LCtP1.4 PURPOSCs.
12. LANDLORD. A ►CRSON OR ENTITY WHO OPERATES A MCNTAL PXOPCMIY, A; CCPtt_u
IN TN,S 0104NAMCC. AND WHO IS CN1114LD TO Ike RCNTAL P+Y-i NI(O FAO.. THE Si :IAV T(Si.
4-3: REGISIMATION REQUIRED:
/. RCOVIRENENt FROM AND AFTCR 1/#(Tg. NO PERSON SMALL OPt1Alt A ACNTAL P.OPLRIV.
IN TM[ CITE Of AONTICCLLO WITHOUT FIRST HAVING PROPCkLY MARC AND riLtV A tC.I-T%A.
IID.S11TEMC"I VII. TMC DUILDINO OfrICIAL. ANY PERSON rILINJ SUCH A ACGI'.'.Atg Z•.'
S TaT[WLNT TMCQCDY CONSENTS. !O OC ODUNp QT ALL OF TNF. PROP t;ION; Of INS "I O�.tI AIGE.
IN INC CASE Of ANY RCNTAL Polo,11ITY. OCCUPICO ON CA PC -opt I/I/19. ;L.I1T4A11_V
:T A TEWENT SMALL Be rILCO OV 1f#r Z+J.
ANO i+• THE LASE Ot' •LN1aL tA0►EATY D1+-LCT=C
11CAOY rap OCCUPANCY ArTCR I�l/i9. A ACGISTRAIION STATCWENt SHAtL Or
:1100 TO THE OCCUPANCY Or THE DWELLING. ,HE R[GIStRAT10N S/ATCMCVT SHALL MA:$
AHL I ICO all roll"1 FURNISHED OV tot DU#Loq NO CrriCiAL roll iUtO ►U1P.3C . AN7 1N.tt
SCI FO MTM INC 0OLLO.INO INFORMATION:
A. NAME AND R[;IUCNCC OF TNC LA11DL00.D AID. 11 A .0^DOR 411101•. .RAC :. U rl.
CLO. ANO INL E. i 1: U D r3:[ T.F'zro,.
D. 111( NANO AND ADDRESS Of THE ACNIAI VIOPCRTT. AN; 'NC +ll.•!L•' .1 T.
lot NUWPCM Or SLCCP#N" -DON$ TO I'MiCN lot, 5ruf/ -T 104 APPL Sea.
L. INCNAME AND A ... el$ .1 THC CARLTAKCR OR NANA.EM RCSPONSIOLE O -t INC
MAINT
to A NCC AND CARC Or THE MULTIPLE [WELLING OR tOOMIN.. MON;C.
D. INC NAME ANO ADORCSS O► TNC LAMOL0RD11 AGENT IDR THC 111tIPT Of NCtII'[s
0► tI OL AT ION. Or T.t PROW I;IONS Or TNIS OND, NANCC. `ME LLMOLOAD Mar rCS 1':N 417E
ANV 19-5110 RCsiDIMO IN flit CITY Or MONTICCLto AS MIS At CMT ton THIS PVMPOSC.
E. `�SU�CH OTHER INFORMATION AS INC COUNCIL NAT RCOU/KL.
2• EALLUT{DM Pr R[Gt1jN8T10N STATLNLNT, INC RCCISIRATION SHALL BE -ADC %T INC
y LANDLOKO (f SVC" LANDLORD is A NATUK AL PLRSONI t9` T"E LANOLONo is A tOa POAATICN.
DT OFF IC CK TNCRCOrI Ir TMC LANOLOND Is A P&ATH[KSN. P. DT ONC Or THE PARTNCHS: AMD
It THE LANDLORD IS AM UNIMCDRPOKATCD ASSOCIATION* MY INC NAMAGCR OR WANAGING off 1.
CCR IWe Rear. RCNCWAL OF RCOISTaATIQNS As ACQUIRED ANNUALLY SY THIS ORDINANCE
NAY SC "ADC SY FILL,.. OUT TMC 0.,..,.,a ......L 1OX04 PXOviOtO SY INC sulLuiNU
Orr ICI" ID TML LAMOLOND Of ALNTAL PKO►L RTY AND MAILING SAID FORM TO..CTMLR WITH
TNC ACOuI PCO $1 I:
ICE TO TMC BUILDING OFFICIAL.
3• A_N.gyq R6s13T1tTIP"t LO
CORNCINO WITH THE •CAR I*. INC NCOssTRAIION Or ALL
RENTAL DWELLING" RC01steAEG FDA TNC PRCVIOU! YEAR SHALL SC Rt"tVta NOT LAtLM
TMA" TNC 3Dr" DAY or JAMUAMT Or eACN YCA0..
4. TRANSFERS. CVCIIY NCV LANDLORD Of A RCNIAL PRO►EMTY. (IANCTMER As FCC OVNta,
CONTMAL'7 rURCNASCM. Lessee $USLCTTINO THE LNTINC OWCLLIMQ. OR ol"talrlse 6NT41LED
TO Not St SHALL MCG#STCA DCFONC TAKING POs1tSSiON. NO RCOISTRa,Ia. ft; !HALL
Ile RLOVINtO Or INC NEW LANDLORD I. TMC YLaX or PUACNASC PROVIOCO INC PREVIOUS
LANDLORD MAS PAID INC 4E01lTAA11011 FEE.
y. 67CCIISINATION ret. ERCLPT AS MAY Or. PROVIDCO OTHCRWISC DT TMC CI1V�OU$4
TNr foil OWIRS fees SMALL Be PAID sY TNL LANDLORD !Y INC 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 0►
CAC. YEARS
A. FOR M sorlI FAMILY DWELLING, flit NCOISTRAT IoM ICL ►IP "Can sNALL OC
/0.00.
O.Fou TNt FIRST UNIT OF A MULTIPLC OWCLLIMGI THC
0.C. 14174411 IOM ICI to
ICAR
SMALL st $10.00. Eves, UNIT TMCRtarTCR #" lti0 "ULtiPI; OKil/044 SNAtL st
CNAMGCO A RCOISTRAIION fee Of $2.00 PER TCA..
C. TME 41"6141"1 OF ANNUAL ACGISTRATION fee rOa AOClNI"G Mouses SHALL me A! rOL.
LOWII 1 TQ -3 SLCL►IMO ROo"s. X10.00 PCR TEAR( G TO 10 wepltr! ROOMS. 1110.E+0
Pts Y;iRt of $LCC►it(S at001{s ANO AOOVC. {30.00 Pts Ye&A.
0. RtM,ML P110CRIV WHICH to LiCCNsCD As A HN(RSINO HoMtt OA As a *ae AsDiNs
C CANC NOMeP UMOLN THE PROVISIONS Or TNC STATC OF MINICOD18 sNALL s; CACMPT FROM
INC ACSISIRATION FCC RCOUINCD UNDCs A. OF EUSDtV#/ION y. hese#N.
a
U-4-3
b -b-1
E• IF OCCUPANCY OF THE RL MT AI 14011.77 SMALL NOT CG.'..0 PRIOR TO JULY 1
C 0/ A CALCNDAR TCAR, THE REGISTRATION FEE REQUIRED SMALL BE REDUCED BY 110%.
ENFORCEMENT: IN ORDER TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH THE REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS.
THE
BUILDING OPFIC IAL OR HIS A3513TANTS SMALL HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ENTER ANY
BUILDING. AT REASONABLE TIMES AND UPON FIVE (5) DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE TENANT(S).
TO DC TCRMIMC I/ OA10 BUILDING 19 OPERATED AS A RENTAL PROPERTY AS DEFINED IN SECTION
OR TO ENFORCE THE UNIfORN HOUSING COOS, OR DOT".
U-11-5: APPLICABLE LAWS- REGISTRANTS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO ALL OF THE ORDINANCES Of THE
CITYOF MONTICELLO AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA RCLATINO TO DWELLINGS: AND. THIS
OPOINANCC SMALL MOT BE l...T.U.0 OR INTERPRETED TO !UPC. SCD. ANY OTMCP SUCH APPLICABLE
ORDINANCE OA LAY.
b-4-6: PENALTY: ANY PERSON, FIRM, CORPORATION. OR PARTNERSHIP WHO SMALL VIOLATE ANY OF
THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE GUILT- OF AN OFFENSE AS PROVIDED IN
SECTION 204 OF THE UNIFORM HOUSING COD.. 1976 EDITION.
4-4-7: EFFECTIVE DATE: TMC EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCC SHALL BE NDVENBER 13. 1978.
C+
NONTICELLO PUBLIC NARKS DFPARMENT
( Work Report
�•'/ October 23, 1978 - November 10, 1978
Water/Wastewater
1. Hauled sludge in preparation for winter (Oct. 23 - Nov. 10)
2. Installed new water meters (4)
3. Tapped water line for Stow -way
4. Inspected and located for local diggers (10)
5. Assisted with yearly maintenance work and draining of
water tower (Nov. 2
6. Chocked main valves and stand pipes for 77-3 project
Streets/Parks
1. Began construction of salt storage bin
2. Continued repairing and replacing street signs (Oct. 24 - Nov. 3)
C� 3. Hauled out Class 5 and retaining posts from boulevard in Fast
Bridge Park (Oct 23)
4. Swept business district streets (Oct. 27 k Nov. 3)
5. Equipment repair on sweeper - replaced crankshaft and gears
(Nov. 8 d 9)
6. Dutch Elm Disease program - filling etusp holes and began
tutting and removing 5 trees.
7. Completed street patching and lowering manholes
A
c_
MONTICELLO KJNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE
COMPARATIVE OPERATING STATEMEItT
SEPTEMBER 30, 1975
c
P'r
OFF -SALE
SALE;
Liquor
$155,747
Wine
37,750
Beer
220.774
SUBiVTAL
$4.14,271
Miscellaneous Merchandise
TOTAL
20 665
$434,636
Less: Freight
MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE
TOTAL CROSS PROFIT
OPERATING EXPENSES
Salaries
STATEM 4T
Store se
Repairs and Maintenance
Utilities
9-30-78
Ptme
For the Nine Months Ending 9-30-77
Axel
GROSS
Insurance
Depreciation
GROSS
Audit Expense
SALES
Fringe Benefits
TO SALES
Advertising Expense
SALES
NSF Cheeks
TO SALES
Miscellaneous Expense
$34,307
Professional Fees
$141,779
TOTAL OPERATING M021SE
$30,767
OPERATING INCOME
25,49a
OTHER EXPENSES
32.45
Bond Interest Expense
19,761
U. C. Fund Reimbursement
28.0
TOTAL OTHER EXPENSES
40,297
OTHER INCOME
172.632
Cash Over (Short)
1.215
Interest Income - Investments
$327,415
Interest Income - Contract :or Deed
TOTAL OTHER 1VOW E
$341,873
NET INCOW,.
9,683
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY
MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE
OOMPARATM OPERATING
STATEM 4T
For the Nine Months Fhding
9-30-78
For the Nine Months Ending 9-30-77
COST OF
GROSS
PER WIT
COST OF
GROSS
PER CENT
SALES
PROFIT
TO SALES
SALES
SALES
PROFIT
TO SALES
$121,440
$34,307
22.02
$141,779
$111,012
$30,767
21.7
25,49a
12,252
32.45
27,462
19,761
7,701
28.0
180 4
40,297
18.25
172.632
101,.417
1.215
18.1
$327,415
9 ,5
0.9-
$341,873
$272,190
9,683
20.4
15.115
___5.250
25.78
16 588
12.234
y.354
26.2
$342,530
$92,51306
2119
$35i,461
$284,424
$74,037
20.6
.
$89,568
_
20.E
$72,0530�
$ 24,725
$ 22,298
1,278
1,438
410
104
3,732
3,978
364
357
736
970
8,635
5,346
59660
5,532
1,230
1,100
3,730
3,412
687
350
78
150
593
299
695
_ 3
$52,553
12.09
$��$ 4
12.7
$37,015
8.51
$22 76
7.4
$ 8,733
$ 9,525
991
1,370
$ 9,724
2.23
$10,895
3.0
$ (9)
$ (93)
2,568
6,816
3,978
5.355
$ 6.537
1.50
$12.073
3.4
$33,828
7.79
$27.339
7.3
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COU177Y
MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE
BALANCE SHEET
For the Month Ending 9-30-78
ASSETS
CURRENT ASSETS
Cash -Operating Fwd
Cash -Sinking Fwd
Cash -Construction Fund
Change Fluid
Petty Cash
Investments -Operating
Inventory
Investments -Sinking
Prepaid Insurance
Bond Discount
Rebates Receivable
Contract for Deed Receivable
TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS
FIXED ASSETS
Cost
Al Derr
Building Improvement
TIM-, 2-5 4
$ 8,832
Furniture & Fixtures
39,716
10,018
Parking Lot
6,436
1,051
Land Costa
5,892
—
TOTAL FIXED ASSETS
00,298
$ 19,901
TOTAL ASSETS
LIABILITIES & EQUITY
CURRENT LIABILITIES
Accounts Payable
$ 20,479
Salaries Payable
—
Pavroll Taxes Payable
1,518
Bond Interest Payable
1,863
Sales Tax Payable
2,433
TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES
LONG TERM LIABILITIES
Bonds Payable
TOTAL LIABILITIES
EQUITY
Balance 1-01-78
$184053
Not Income Thru 9-30-78
33,828
TOTAL EQIITY
TOTAL LIABILITY & EQUITY
A
$ 34,446
(23,163)
6,615
600
100
66,029
54,675
42,304
3,567
2,805
899
43,200
Net
$139,422
29,698
5,385
5,892
$ 26,293
$234,077
$1801392
$4 4.4744.474
$170,
000
$196,293
$218,181
$414.474
Ah
. REULAR MEETING
WFrICELLO CITY COUNCIL
October 23, 1978 - 7:30 P.M.
Members Present: Gene Walters, Arve Grimsmo, Dan Blonigen, Phil white.
Members Absent: C. 0. Johnson
1. Public Hearing - Consideration of Variance Reauest for Minimum Lot Size
and Subdivision by Arne Kolbiornsen.
Mr. Arne Kolbjornsen has requested a variance of approximately 700 square
feet to subdivide a lot within C eekside Terrace into two parcels.
The current lot size is 26,482 square feet, and the proposed subdivision
would create two lots of approximately 9,300 sq. ft. and 17,182 sq.
A variance is necessary since the minimum lot size in an R-2 zone is
10,000 sq. ft.
The following citizens were heard at the Public Hearing:
Donna Larson - indicated to the Council that the neighbors had opposed
the original rezoning request from R-1 to R-2 for the duplex approxi-
mately a year ago, and felt that the Council shouldn't grant an addi-
tional variance loy allowing the subdivision of the same lot now.
Jim Larson - stated that he was under the impression at the rezoning
hearing last year that the lot was too small to have two single family
homes situated on, and that was the primary reason why the lot was
originally rezoned from R-1 to Rr2 to allow for the duplex. Mr. Larson
also felt strong opposition to the subdivision and did not think that if
the lot was too small last year for two single family homes, how it
could be big enough now for a duplex and a single family home.
Gilbert Stickford - thought that the original duplex proposed for this
lot was to be owner -occupied, but never was, and opposed any subdlvision
of this lot because of its size.
Steve Johnson - Mr. Johnson felt that the zoning ordinances for the
City should protect the neighbors in the area, and that most of the
people did purchese their lots and homes with the assumption that the
area was singlo family residential and would remain as such. Opposed
to any subdivision.
Earl Swan - was opposed to any subdivision and also indicated that he
was under the assumption that the duplex was to be owner -occupied.
Based primarily on Lho fact that this particular lot was initially
rezoned from R.1 to R-2 to allow for the duplex because of the initially
large square footage of the lot, motion was made by P. White, seconded
by A. Grimsmo and unanimously carried to deny the subdivision request and
minimum lot size request for Mr. Ame Kolbjornsen.
/a
Cowicil Minutes - 10/23/73
I 2. Public Hearing - Consideration of Variance Request of Side,yard Setback
Requirements - Tadako Pratt.
C
Tadako Pratt, who lives at 301 W. River Street, requested a variance to
build an attached garage up to the east property line of her residence.
Presently, her home is 2' from the property line on the east side,
and she merely would like to move her garage which she plans to attach
to the existing house, two feet (21) ahead of the existing house.
The Planning Commission, at their last meeting, upon hearing no objec-
tions, recommended approval of this variance.
Motion was made by A. Grimsmo, seconded by D. Blonigen and unanimously
carried to approve the sideyard variance request for Tadako Pratt.
3. Public Hearing for the Consideration of a Variance Request for an Off -
premise Sign - Electro Industries.
Mr. Bill Seefeldt, of Electro Industries, requested a variance to allow
an off -premise sign for his company to be put on the property of the
Monticello Rod & Gun Club. A letter has been received from the Monti-
cello Rod & Gun Club indicating that they have agreed to provide per-
mission to Mr. Seefeldt for the sign.
A variance request was necessary since City ordinances do not allow any
off -premise sig: advertising a product or another firm. Part of the
Council discussion concerned whether a variance of this type would
create a precedent for future off -premise signs.
Based primarily on the fact that Electro Industries is located in a
hard -to -find place and that the sign would be a mall directional type
sig:, motion was made by P. White, seconded by D. Blonigen to approve
the variance request for the off -premise sign. Voting in favor:
P. White, D. Blonigen, A. Grimsmo. Opposed: G. Walters.
Variance request was denied since a 4/5'3 vote is necessary.
4. Consideration of Temporary Use Permit to Allow LirJ% Manufacturing within
an R-2 Zone - Decorative Services.
Mr. Bill Schockor, of Decorative Services, requested a temporary use
permit to allow Decorative Services to utilize one room on the second
floor of the Oakwood Elementary School for use by his manufacturing
firm. Mr. Schockor indicated that the request was a temporary one in
nature and would last only for up to one year, or until his new building
can be constructed in Oakwood Industrial Park. W. Schackor also
informed the Council that only one room would be used and that no re-
modeling of the school would be necessary.
Motion was made by A. Grimsmo, seconded by D. Blonigen and unanimously
carried to approve the temporary use permit for light manufacturing in
an R-2 zone for Decorative Services with a ono -year time limit.
- 2 -
Council Miinutes - 10/23/73
5. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development -
Mbnticello I-94 Tri -Plaza.
Mr. Sam Peraro proposed that the property he owns southeast of the inter-
section of I-94 and Highway 25 be granted a conditional use permit :'or
a Planned Unit Development. Mr. Peraro indicated that the request for
a PUD was to allow for the eventual construction of two restaurants along
with the Vance's Amoco Gasoline Station, which is currently under
construction on the property.
The primary reason for the request to go to a PUD was that Mir. Peraro
intended to continue ownership of the entire three acres, and by allow-
ing for a PUD instead of going into a subdivision, more flexibility is
given the developer in making better use of the parcels of land for
parking requirements, landscaping, etc. Additionally, under a suhdivi-
sion, all parcels must front on a public right-of-way, and thus, th•a
property in question would probably only have two parcels instead o: the
three that are allowed under the PUD plan.
Motion was made by D. Blonigen, seconded by P. White and unanimously
carried to approve the conditional use permit for Mr. Peraro's Planned
Unit Development, contingent upon the plan including all recommendations
made by the consulting City Planner, Howard Dahlgren &. Associates.
6. Consideration of Rezoning and Conditional Use Permit for a 24 -Unit
Apartment - Ken Krienke.
t� Mr. Ken Krienkc applied for a rezoning and conditional use permit to
allow for the construction of a 24 -unit apartment building on the south-
west corner of the J. R. Culp farm located south of I-94 on Highway 25.
C4
Currently, the property is zoned R-1 and would require an R-3 zoning
and a conditional use permit since over 12 units are proposed.
Mir. Krienke indicated that he is planning to build a low to moderate -
income project with Fanners Home Administration Funds which would be
a subsidized housing project for families with income of approximately
$11,000 to $16,000 per year.
Considerable discussion was had by the Council on whether a need for this
type of housing has been surveyed by the developer. Mr. Krienke indicated
that he would be doing a survey in the surrounding area including
St. Cloud and Wright County, if such property was rezoned for an eventual
apartment house. Council consensus indicated that possibly study figures
should be made prior to granting of a conditional use permit or rezoning,
as members would like to know where the possiblo tenante would be coming
from.
By Council consensus, this item was tabled for approximately three weeks
to enable more information to be gathered on the need for such sub-
sidized housing and where such tenants may come from.
- 3 -
Council !•lLnutes - 10/23/73
7. Consideration of an Ordinance Amendment to Allow Jewelry Stores as a
Permitted Use within a B-3 Zone.
Mr. Dan Poirier requested an ordinance amendment to allow a jewcliy s;,ore
to be located within a B-3 Zone. Mr. Pcirier was proposing to put a:
establishment called Rings 'n Things in Mel Worth's Stor-a-Way Building
located on Highway 25 south of I-94.
Since City ordinances allow jewelry stores only as permitted uses vithin
a B-4 Zone, an amendment to the B-3 Zoning District would have Lo be
made to allow for such a use.
Council discussed whether such a use should be allowed as a permittca use
in a B-3 Zone, but felt that in order to possibly control future jewelry
stores, a conditional use approach should be used. As a result, a motion
was made by P. White, seconded by D. Blonigen and unanimously carried to
amend the zoning ordinances to allow a Jewelry store as a conditional
use within a B-3 Zoning District, and also to approve the conditional
use permit request to Mr. Dan Poirier for a jewelry store in the Stor-a-
Way Building. (See Ordinance Amendment 10/23/78 #61).
8. Consideration of Approval of Development Agreement with Oakwood Industrial
Park Partnership Relative to Dundas Road.
The City Council previously approved the plans and specifications for
improving Dundas Road in Oakwood Industrial Park with a gravel base.
These plans and specs were prepared by the City consulting engineer
at the request of the Partnership.
A development agreement was prepared between the City and Oakwood Indus-
trial Park Partnership agreeing that all work to be done shall be com-
pleted to the satisfaction and approval of the City Council and also
provides for the developer providing a surety bond for lj times the
estimated construction costs, said costs being $469425. This bond would
be payable in favor of the City of Monticello, and in addition, a cash
deposit would have to be placed with the City in the estimated cost of
$7,892.00 for administrative costa, legal costs, inspection service and
engineering services.
Motion was made by D. Blonigen, seconded by P. White and unanimously
carried to approve the development agreement for improvements in
Oakwood Industrial Park as presented. (See Supplement 10/23/78 #1).
9. Consideration of Conditional Use Permit for Ambulance Carago -
Monticollo-Big Lake Community Hospital.
The Monticello -Big Lake Community Hospital requested a conditional use
Permit to allow the construction of an ambulance garage which would be
built to the oast of the current hospital on hospital property. City
ordinances require that any additions or any facilities related to a
hospital are required to go through a conditional use permit process.
=37
Council Minutes - 10/23/78
The Planning Commission held a special meeting just prior to the City
Council's meeting, but tabled any action on the request since definite
plans were not made available by the Hospital regarding location and
whether it was a temporary garage facility. As a result, the City
Council tabled any action until a future date.
10. Consideration of Allocation of Anti -Recession Fiscal Assistance Funds.
Monticello recently received $2,317 in anti -recession fiscal assistance
funds in 1978. These Federal funds are to be used for the purpose of
maintaining basic services and to help defray the cost of general
salaries. The amount of anti -recession fiscal assistance funds arc based
upon the amount of unemployment in a given area.
Motion was made by D. Blonigen, seconded by A. Crimsmo and unanimously
carried to approve the allocation of anti -recession fiscal assistance
hands in the amount of $2,317 towards the cost of general administrative
salaries.
11. Consideration of Ordinance Amendment Relative to the Use of Banners.
Pennants and Similar Devices.
As was discussed during a previous Council meeting, at least two busi-
nesses in the City of Monticello have banners, pennants or similar
devices used at their business locations. According to Monticello City
Ordinances, such pennants or banners are not allowed except under a
temporary use permit for seven (7) days.
1.
The Council discussed the possibility of grandfathering for up to one
year those businesses now using pennantsin violation of the ordinance
and then requiring all future businesses to abide by the ordinance, or
whether they should be notified immediately that they must be removed.
It was the consensus of the Council that the ordinances should be
adhered to, but discussions centered on the length of time to be given
the violators to take down the existing banners.
While Councilman Blonigen felt that three days was sufficient time to
remove the pennants, other council members felt 30 days would be appro-
priate. Motion was therefore made by P. White, seconded by A. Grimsmo
to notify the property owners that the pennants must be taken down
according to City ordinances within 30 days, or the property owner would
be cited. Voting in favors P. White, A. Crimsmo, G. Walters.
Opposed: D. Blonigen.
12. Consideration of Curb Barrier for Monticello City Maintenance Building.
Public Works Director, Mike Rojala, presented a cost estimate for curbing
and landscaping at the Maintenance Building parking lot per a recent
request by the Council. The ostimated cost to construct curb and gutter
around the existing blacktop section of the parking lot at the Maintenance
Building was $1,734. This coat estimate was for only improving the exist-
ing parking area with curb and gutter and did not include any bituminous
surfacing or curb and guttering of the largo balance of the City lot.
- 5 -
Council Minutes - 10/23/78
The reason for not completing the blacktopping and curb and guttering
C, of the balance of the City property is that this way the City can con-
tinue to utilize the Maintenance building for stockpiling gravel, salt
and sand mix and street sweepings.
It was the Council consensus that some sort of curb and gutter improve-
ment should be made at the Maintenance Building, but this item was
tabled until next spring since it would appear to be too late to start
a project of this nature this fall.
13. Approval of Bills.
Motion was made by D. Blonigen, seconded by P. White and unanimously
carried to approve the bills for the month of October, 1978 as pre-
sented. (See Supplement 10/23/78 #2).
14. Approval of Minutes.
The Minutes for the Regular Meeting held October 10, 1978, were approved
as read.
15. Consideration of Resolqtion Supporting Citv of Richfield Law Suit Con-
testing Como,ilsory Binding Arbitration Provisions.
The City of Richfield recently requested support of its attempt to
contest the compulsory binding arbitration provisions of its union
contracts. The City of Richfield is currently appealing to the Minnesota
Supreme Court the binding arbitration provisions because the recent
decisions have been unfair, inflationary and detrimental to the collec-
tive bargaining process.
Motion was made by P. White, seconded by D. Blonigen and unanimously
carried to adopt a resolution supporting the City of Richfield's fight
against compulsory binding arbitration and authorizing a sum of $100.00
to be paid to the League of Minnesota Cities to assist in the financing
of appealing this lawsuit to the Minnesota Supreme Court.
(See Resolution 1978 #15).
Miscellaneous
A special meeting of the City Council was scheduled for November 8, 1978
at 7:30 P.M. for the purpose of canvassing the election returns of
November 7, 1978.
Meeting Adjourned.
Rick Wolfstel
CAssistant Administrator
RW/n a
— 6 —