City Council Agenda Packet 06-25-1979l
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Juno 25, 1979 - 7,30 P. M.
Mayors Arve Grimsmo
Council Members: Dan Blonigen, Fran Fair, Ken Maus, Philip White. !�
Meeting to be tape 1.�% ✓ �a`� �U'L�.,ar� �/'/' h.+
•, r,,Wzens Comments. �• 'J ' (l
!� 1. Public Hearing - Consideration�� a Variance Request on
Curb and Landscaping.- a„ r�•• n.:_,
` 2. Public Hearing - Consideration of a Variance Request on
Curb Type for Best -In -Webb.
+�3. Public Hearing - Consideration of Variance Request for
���'• ! Side -Yard Set Back - Mike Slagtor.
4. Public Hearing - Consideration of a Variance Request of
c•1'^�' Hard Surface Requirements for a Parking Lot - Mel Wolters
(Dairy queen).
5. Conaidoration of Approval of James Maus' `,Tho meadows"
(� Subdiviaion Plot. Y_ M µ b 5 +A
6. Consideration of Requesting Planning Coawieeion to Hold
Hearing on Amendment to the City of Monticello Ordinances
Relative to Outdoor Advertising Signs.
(17. Consideration of Requesting the Planning Commission to Hold
NO a Hearing on Ordinance Amendments to Allow a Combination of
Residential and Commercial Uses in a B-3 and B -a Districts.
3�. B. Consideration of Awarding Contract on the 1979-1 Improvement
��•1�, Project.
(1 9. Consideration of Amending Monticello Ordinance Relative to
Building Permit Foos.
+
10. Consideration of Approval of 1970 Audit.
t�ll. Approval of Minutes - Regular Mooting of Jun. 110 979
• � (l2. Approval of Bills - Juno, 1979.
1�l
Unfiniahed Buoinean
fn Special Meeting - July 16, 1979, on Industrial Cost Recovery
Charge.
{How nusinono -
n1 J� a V,- L
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
June 25, 1979 - 7:10 P.M.
Members Present: Arve Grimsmo, Dan Blonigen, Fran Fair, Ken Maus
Members Absent: Phil White.
Citizens Comments:
Mr. John Meier - representative of the Trinity Lutheran Church, informed
the City Council that the Church would like to relocate a home from their
property on West Broadway and have it moved to a lot they recently pur-
chased on West Broadway, at the corner of Chestnut Street and Broadway.
Since this home was more than ten (10) years old, the consensus of the
Council was that a Public licaring would be held at the next regular Council
meeting to afford the abutting property owners an opportunity to be heard
in regards to this home being located on the lot purchased by the Church.
Mr. Maier has indicated that the property owners he has talked to have
no objection, but Ilan not talked to all of the abutting property owners.
Mr. Fred Topel - requested that the Council reconsider a previous variance
they granted allowing him to construct a residential apartment above his
Mini -Mall complex on Broadway. At the May 29, 1979 Council Meeting, the
variance was approved contingent upon Mr. Topel being agreeable to removing
an exiating older garage at the rear of filo proporty to provide off-otrect
barking spaces. Mr. Topel indicated that at the present time, Ile would
not be in favor of removing the garage to provide additional apaces
and felt that he had at least twelve spaces now for parking which should
1,e adequate. lie indicated that in the future, he would be more willing
to remove the garage, but not at the present time.
Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Dan Blonigen and unanimously
carried to approve the variance request for the residential apartment
over the laini-Mall complex without the need for removing the existing
garage.
1. Public nearing - Conaideration of a Variance Request on Curt) and Landscaping -
Tom Thumb Suporotte.
Mr. Dick Kvanbock, repreoentativo of James Refrigeration Company, owner
of Tom Thumb Superette, requested a variance to inotall a special type
of preformed curbing around the parking area of their Tom Thumb Store.
Their request was based on price, flexibility and the speed of installa-
tion, which could ba installed in ono days time.
Since this typo of curl) would lie now to the Monticello area, motion was
made by Ken Mauo, seconded by Fran Fair and unanimously carried to grant
Tnm Thumb Supere.tto a variance to inotall this preformed curbing on a
trial, experimental haois.
Council Minutes - 6/25/79
Additionally, the City requires landscaping for the new Tom Thumb Store
to be at least $1,500, or 1% of the construction cost, whichever is greater.
Mr. Kvanbeck informed the Council that he has received estimates for
additional landscaping totaling $896 and requested that the existing cedar
trees located on the lot be counted towards the $1,500 requirement.
Motion was made by Ken Maus, seconded by Dan Blonigen and unanimously
carried to approve the variance allowing for an additional $896 in land-
scaping to be provided at the Tom Thumb site with credit being given
for the existing trees to make up the $1,500 total.
2. Public Ilearinq - Consideration of a Variance Request on Curb Type - Best
In Web.
Best In Web Company, located in Oakwood Industrial Park, requested a
variance to install the same type of preformed curbing as mentioned in
Item 1. above.
Motion was made by Dan Blonigen, seconded by Fran Fair and unanimously
carried to also approve the preformed curbing request of Best In Web
on a trial, experimental basis.
3. Public licarinq - Consideration of a Variance Request for Sideyard
Setback - Mike Slaqter.
Mr. Mike Slagter requested a variance to build an attached garage on his
home at 115 Marvin Elwood Road in Anders Wilhelm Estates. Mr. Slagter
would like to extend his garage 26' to the south of his home, which
would bring him to within 6' of his neighbors aide property line. Mr.
Slagter infonned the Council that his garage would need a 4' variance
on one corner of the garage and the other side would meet the 10' require-
ment.
Hearing no objections, motion was made by Ken Maus, seconded by Dan
Bloniqan and unanimously carried to approve the 4' setback variance
for Mr. Slagtar'o garage.
4. Public Bearing - Consideration of a Variance Requeot of Rardaurfacinq
Requirements for a Parkinq Int - Mel Wolters.
Mr. Mal Wolters, owner of the Dairy Queen in Monticello, requested a
variance to allow parking on the abutting lots to the. Dairy Queen without
having the property hardsurfaeed. Tho reason for his request is that
he plans on building an office building on Iota 9 6 10 in the near
future, and would have to tear up the blacktopping to construct the
building which would be a waste of materials and money. Thu additional
parking would be used for overflow parking from the Dairy Queen during
the busy times of the year.
Motlnn was made by Dan Bloniqon, seconded by Ken Maus and unanimously
carried to approve a variance from hardourfacinq requirements for the
parking lot for a period of twelve (12) months. At Lilo and of one
year, the barking lot would either be hardourfacod or Mr. Wolters would
Itnve to ask for another variance.
2 -
/y
U
Council Minutes - 6/25/79
5. Consideration of �2proval of James Maus's "The Meadows" Subdivision Plat.
Mr. Jim Maus presented a preliminary plat proposing a 30 acre subdivision
consisting of seventy (70) residential lots in the northwestern part of
Monticello.
It was the intention of Mr. Maus to develop this subdivision in two phases,
one consisting of fifteen lots abutting Prairie Road, and the second phase
would be the development of the interior fifty-five lots. The reason for
the two-phase development was that the fifteen lots abutting Prairie Road
would have immediate access to City sewer and water and tarred ntreets.
At a later date, the second phase of the development would be completed
when the extension of sewer, storm sewer, water and tarred streets are
completed to the interior of the plat itself.
Mr. Phil Ritze, representing Ritze Manor subdivision, asked whether the
storm sewer runoff will affect Ritze Manor lots without actual storm sewer
facilities being constructed at this time. Consulting Engineer, John
Badalich, explained that with the limited development in phase one, the
ponding areas pLovided in salboul Flst.ates and drainage ditches provided
in the Meadows development, should take care of any runoff for now.
Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Arve Grimsmo to approve the
entire preliminary plat as presented, with Phase One being submitted for
final approval only at this time. voting in Favor: Dan Blonigen,
Arve Grimsmo, Fran Fairy Abstaining - Ken Maus.
6. Consideration of Requestinq Planninq Conrsissinn to linld Public iiearinq on
Amendment to the City of Monticello ordinances Relative to Outdoor
Advertininu Signs.
Mr. Ray Galarneault, of Blocher Advertising Company in St. Cloud, pre-
viously requested to be on the Council agenda to discuss outdoor adver-
Lining signs and possible ordinance amendments to allow such signs in
the future.
Since Mr. Galarneault wan not available at the meeting to make any comments.
It was the, consensus of the Council to table this item until the next
regular Council meeting.
7. consideration of Requestinq Planninq Commission to bold a Public ttearinq
on Ordinance Amendments to Allow a Combination of Residential and Commercial
uses in a B-3 and B-4 district.
According to present City Ordinances, residential uaes aro not allowed in
a B-3 or B-4 commercial district. Recently, the City had received two
requests, one from Br. Joel Erickson and the other from Fred Topol, to
allow apartments to be constructed over their commercial ventures. In both
of these cases, approval wan granted and the Planning Commission at that
time recommended that the City Planner draft an ordinance amendment that
would allow this typo of use within a 8-3 or B-4 district.
Council Minutes - 6/25/79
Although an Ordinance Amendment has been prepared by the Planner, both
the Planning Commission and the City Council felt that at the present
time they would like to consider any request on an individual basis rather
than providing for such uses within the Ordinance. Therefore, it was the
consensus of the Council to take no action at this time and to leave the
ordinances as they are now.
8. Consideration of Awardinq Contract on the 1979-1 Improvement Project.
On Friday, June 22, 1979, bids were received on the 1979-1 Improvement
Project. The low bidder for the Improvement Project was Harbarossa 6 Sons
in the amount of $839,599. (See Agenda Supplement 6/25/79 01).
As part of the 1979-1 improvement project, the City will have to obtain
casements from three property owners for improving sewer and water
and extending Dundas Road south of Highway 25. In addition to the
casements, it was noted by the Engineer that additional items were
included in the final plans and specs. which were not included in the
original feasibility report. Some of the additional items included
grading to be completed on Inuring Lane in Lauring Hillside Terrace, and
also additional street work in Oakwood Industrial Park.
It was the consensus of the Council to table any action on awarding the
contract on the 1979-1 Improvement Project until an additional public
hearing could be held to afford the property owners affected by the
improvement an opportunity to hear the new cost estimntes and also allow
the City additional time to obtain the easements necessary. The additional
public hearing will be held at the next regular council meeting.
9. Consideration of Amendino Monticello Ordinances Relative to euildinq Permit
Fees.
In 1978, at the time the City hired its first full-time building inspector,
the building fee schedules were updated to 756 of the suggested fee
schedules contained in the Uniform Building Code. It was decided at the
Lima the fees were increased, to review the fee schedules after at least
a years time had lapsed to see if any adjustments were necessary. After
Computing the revenues and expenditures of the building inspection depart-
ment from April 1, 1970 through March 31, 1979, it was noted that there
remains a deficit of approximatoly $3,G00 for this department to break even
and it would require an increase of approximately 326 in building hermit
fees. In order to have the building inspection department be self-support-
inq, rather than subsidized through general property taxes, it was
recommended that the State Uniform Building Code schedule be adopted.
This new schedule would hoost the cost of a permit for a $00,000 home
from $117.75 to, approximately $157.00.
Motion wan made by Fran Fair, seconded by Dan Blonigen and unanimously
carried to approve an ordinance amendment increasing the building permit
fees to the State ougguated schedule, excluuivo of plan checking fee,
effective August 1, 1979. (Sao Ordinance Amendment 6/25/79 069).
-a-
Council Minutes - 6/25/79
r 10. Consideration of Approval of 1978 Audit.
\_. Mr. Bob Carlson, of Gruys, Johnson s Associates, reviewed the 1978
Audit with the City Council at their last regular meeting, and also has
reviewed the statements with individual Council Members, Fran Fair and
Ken Maus.
Motion wan made by Ken Maus, seconded by Fran Fair to accept the 1978 audit
report as presented. Voting in favor, Ken Maus, Arve Grimsmo, Fran Fair,
abstaining, Dan Blonigen.
11. Approval of Bills and Minutes.
Public Works Director, John Simola, discussed with the Council the possi-
bility of withholding come of the funds from Nelson Trees of Zimmerman,
Minnesota, for the replacement trees they recently planted this spring.
Mr. Simola indicated that some of the trees appear to be dying and others
were not planted correctly.
Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Ken Maus and unanimously carried
to approve the Minutes of the regular meeting held June 11, 1979, and
also to approve the bills for the month of June, as presented, with the
exception of Nelson trees, which should have a loo amount withheld until
the trees can be reviewed.
12. Discussion on Civil Defense Sirens.
1, Civil Defense Director, Loren Klein, reviewed with the Council the progress
y on getting cost estimates for installation of civil defense sirens in
Monticello. Mr. Klein has consulted with various firms that specialize
in sirens, and the recommendations have been made to install three largo
sirens at an estimated coat of approximately $10,000.
Motion was made by Ken Maus, seconded by Dan Blonigen and unanimously
carried to authorize the civil defense director to prepare plans and
specifications for the installation of the necessary sirens and to report
back to the Council when comploted. (Soo supplement 6/25/79 02)
Meeting adjourned.
Rick Wolfstpllor
Assistant Administrator
RW/ns
- 5 -
City Council - 6/25/79
AGENDA SUPPLEMENT
1.
Public Nearinq - Consideration of a Variance Request on Curb '
and Landscaping.-q^w.a,6 4W.J•
(VJCo.
James Refrigeration , developer of the Tom Thumb Superette, has made
application to install a special type of pre -formed curbing
around the parking area of that store at the intersection of
Oakwood Drive and Highway 25 (copy of the brochure explaining
this curbing is enclosed).
Their request is based upon price, flexibility and speed for in-
stallation. This type of curbing is much less expensive than
what we presently require and can most likely be installed in
one day's time.
The sales representative for the company who manufactures this
curb would show anyone who is interested some installations of
this product in the mctro arca.
At their last meeting, the Planning Commission voted to allow
this type of curb as a variance for Tom Thumb rather than re-
commending blanket approval of this curb type. Purpose behind
this decision was to allow a trial period of time to see how
`
thio curb type stands up.
OIr
b
For your information, the ordinance States all curbing in com-
♦I' to
mercial areas shall be six (6) inch non -surmountable continuous
i
�
typo of a design to be approved by the city engineer. I a m
l
sending a copy of the brochure to John Badalich also for his
L(.
review and the council may be interested in his assessment of
thio curb typo and whether to allow it as a variance or as
(A
meeting the ordinance.
Additionally, the owner has had a landscaper estimate the
landscaping for this project. The landscaper has quoted the
owner $096.00 for landscaping and says that the amount would be
all She would recommend to keep from "over -doing" it on thin
project. Also taken into consideration in addition to the
$096.00 proposal is existing trace on the project which would
be valued at about $100. Thin amounts to $996 or $504 short
of the city's requirement.
•
POSSIBLE ACTIOM Consideration of curb variance request or as
an alternative to allow thin type of curb on a permanent basis
an meeting the city'a ordinance and landscaping variance.
REFERF14CES, Map depicting area. Brochure on the concrete product.
Planning Commission minutoo of Juno 19, 1979.
• Action roquiroo 4/510 veto for approval.
-1-
City Council - 6/25/79
2. Public Hearing - Consideration of a Variance Request on Curb Type
for Best -In -Webb.
Best -In -Webb, located in Oakwood Industrial Park, is requesting
a variance to install the pre -formed curb as mentioned in Item 1.
Previously, Best -In -Webb had been granted a variance to receive
a certificate of occupancy on the installation of curb.
At their last meeting, the Planning Commission voted to approve
the variance for the same reasons indicated in Item 1.
• POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval or denial of variance
request.
REFERENCES: Item 1 brochure. Map depicting area. Planning
Commission minutes of June 19, 1979.
• Action requires 4/5'a vote for approval.
3. Public liearinq - Consideration of Variance Request for Side -Yard
Set Back - Mike Slagter.
An application has been received from Mike Slagter to build an
attached garage on his home at 115 Marvin Elwood Road(Lot 8, Block 1,
Anders Wilhelm Estates). This arca is currently zoned as R-1.
Mr. Slagter would like to extend his garage 26 feet to the south
of his home, which would bring him within 6 feet of his neighbor's
gid,o property line. According to MonticellN s city ordinances
in an R-1 zone, a 10 foot side -yard set back is required.
At the loot meeting the Planning Commission voted unanimously
to recommend approval of this variance request.
It should be noted that normally the city has issued variances on
aide -yard setbacks on existing lots where there has previously boon
homes and there has been a need to add a garage at a later time.
However, this lot lies within the auhdivision that was approved in
1977. The lot itself is only 85' wide, but does meet the city of
Monticello minimum standard of 80' width. The criteria for variance
as established by Monticello city ordinance is listed in the ordinance
section 10-23, a copy of which is enclosed for your reference.
• POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval or denial of variance
request. It,
REFE[ZENCES: Planning Commission minutes of June 19, 1979 enclosed.
Enelosod plot plan and map depicting area and copy of Monticello
ordinances relative to variances.
• Action requires 4/510 veto for approval.
-2-
City Council 6/25/79
4. Public Hearing - Consideration of a variance Request of Hard
Surface Requirements for a Parkinq Lot - Mel Wolters (Dairy Queen)
Mel Wolters, owner of the Dairy queen in Monticello which occupies
Lot 7 and B in Block 5 is also the owner of Lots 9 and 10 to the
west in Block 5.
Sometime within the next year, Mr. Wolters plans to build a business
on Lots 9 and 10 at which time he will meet Monticello's ordinance
regarding hard surface parking lots. In the meantime, however,
he is requesting a variance to allow parking on these two lots
without having the hard surface requirements. His reason is that
in a short period of time he would have to tear the lot up again
to do the building and it would waste the expensive hard surface
area. It should be pointed out that if this variance is granted
this lot would serve as overflow parking for the Dairy Queen in
addition to parking for the new business planned for Lots 9 and 10.
At their meeting of June 19, 1979, the Monticello Planning Commission
voted to recommend approval of this variance for one year. After
expiration of one year the site would be reviewed and also consider -.A
in light of any construction.
If approved the council may want to consider the stipulation that
the temporary parking created on Lots 9 and 10 should have a defined
perimeter to outline the parking area. This would prevent scattered
parking all over these lots, and the intent would be to contain
them within a defined area.
• POSSIBLE ACTIONt Consideration of approval or denial of variance
request and the assignment if approved of a time period for which
the variance would be allowed.
REFERENCES: Map depicting area and a letter of objection from
an abuting property owner. Subsequent telephone call indicated
that the understanding was for the variance to be permanent.
• Action requires 4/5'a vote for approval.
5. Consideration of approval of James Mauo'o "Tho Meadows" Subdivision
Plot.
James Maus is proposing a thirty (30) acro subdivision plot consisting
of soventy (70) residential lots in the northwestern part of the
City of Monticello to the north of Balboul Estates and Anders Wilhelm
Estates. Soo onclonod map depicting aroo.
It is the intention of Mr. Maus to develop thin subdivision in
two (2) phases. Phaco one (1) would conciat of 15 lots directly abuting
Prairie Road and to the north of Prairie Road. Phase two (2) would
be the development of the intorior fifty-fivo (55) lots.
-3-
City Council 6/25/79
Reason for the two (2) phase development, according to Mr. Klaus, is
that the 15 lots which abut_ Prairie Road have immediate access to
city sewer and water and tarred streets, except for Lots 13,14, and 15.
See enclosed copy of subdivision. Mr. Maus indicated that once phase
one (1) develops, it would be the intention at a later date to develop
the remaining lots, or phase two (2), which would require the oxtention
of sewer, water, storm sewer along with tarred streets into the interior
of the plot itself.
on a preliminary basis, Mr. Maus is requesting approval of the entire
subdivision including phase one (1) and phase two (2). However,
Mr. Maus will only be submitting phase one (1) for final plot approval
to the City Council. At a later date phase two (2) would be presented
and will be in accordance with the preliminary plot and any
revisions approved by the council. For your information it is necessary
for the planning commission to review the preliminary plot and for
the city council to review both the preliminary plot and the final
plot. At their discretion the city council can request that the
final plot also be reviewed by the planning commission. The council
may want to consider this action when phase two (2) is presented
on a final nlnt hasty.
It should be pointed that our city engineer has reviewed the preliminary
plot and has recommended this plot be approved with some minor revisions
including that the Clover Circle cul-de-sac be graded, the ditch
continued north such that the run-off is directed toward the rail-
road tracks and to the culvert between the Lots 15 and 16 of Block 1,
under the railroad tracks. Additionnlly, that portion of Clover
Circle from Prairie Road to the rear lots in Phase I should remain
a rural section with ditches on both sides to conform with the
Prairie Road ditches up until the time Prairie Road is developed
as an urban street and storm water is provided as recommended
on the Comprehensive Plan.
At their last meeting, the Planning Commission voted to recommend
approval of this subdivision plot.
It should be noted there has been concern from residents within the
11illereat area since the ultimate plan to drain the area north and
south of Prairie Road is via a storm sower pipe underneath the
Burlington Northern railroad tracks from the Meadows plot in a
northeasterly direction through the Hillcreat Park area and then
into the creek behind the Hillcreat Addition. Residents of this
area aro apparently already concerned with pollution in the crock.
Various alternatives have been roviewed to drain this area. one
method would he through a system of ponding areasl however, this
has been discussed with both Mr. Maus'engineor and our city
engineer and it is felt thin would be only a temporary solution
since the ultimata development of the Mrndown subdivision along
with the Dalboul subdivision, the Anders Wilhelm subdivision and
adjacent property owned by Mr. Edgar Klucao and Mr. W. Soefaldt
would necessitate the handling of this water by means other than
ponding areas. Additionally, Mr. Dadalieh has pursued the possibility
of draining the Meadows plot in a southwesterly fashion along the
freeway and thonco in a southeasterly fashion to Otter Crack.
Mr. nadalich has indicated that this method would be quite a bit
more expensive than tho method currently proposed in the Compro-
henoivo Storm Sewer Plan.
-4-
City Council 6/25/79
In talking with Mr. Badalich, he has indicated that all storm
sewer out -letting into a creek or public body of water has to
be approved by the DNR. Mr. Badalich has indicated that he
would be in contact with the DNR, but sees no problem with
getting a permit from the DNR for out -letting the storm sewer
into the creek behind Hillcrest Addition.
It should be further pointed out that the initial development,
Phase 1, does not require this storm sewer system as outlined in
the Storm Sewer Comprehensive Plan. However, as Phase II is
completed, and the rest of the area indicated above is saturated
it will be necessary to provide for the alleviation of storm
sewer run-off in the area.
At the Planning Commission meeting, which was a public hearing,
the only concern formerly received was from Mr. Daryl Tindle
relative to the storm sewer problem out -letting into the creek
behind Hillcrest. Mr. Tindle abuts this creek and is concerned that
it not be polluted. Anothor written concern of the area of
Maus subdivision but not directly related to the subdivision plot
itself, came from Bill Seefoldt and a copy of his letter dated
June 19, 1979 is enclosed. Mr. Scefoldt'o primary concern was
with the development of this area as residential as opposed to
industrial.
For your further information, I have encloncd two previous memoran-
dums covering some of the aspects of this subdivision plot proposed
by Jim Maus.
The park dedication requirement for this area proposed to be in
cash since the area close to the Maus subdivision plot has quite
a few parks either developed or previously dedicated. These parka
include a park in Hillcroat Second Addition, a park within Balboul
Estates, a park within Andare Wilhelm Estates, and a park just
adjacent to Anders wilholm Estates dedicated as a result of the
Ritze Manor plot.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval or denial of tho sub-
division plot on a preliminary basis.
RLFERENCES: John Badalich'o latter of June 11, 1979, copy of sub-
division plot enclosed, and copies of two memorandums relative to
this subdivision plot, and a copy of map depicting area.
Consideration of Requeatinq Planninq Commission to Hold Hearing on
Amendment to the City of Monticello Ordinances Relative to outdoor
Advortisinq Signs.
As you may recall, Mr. Ray Calarneault of Blocher Adv. Co. in St.
Cloud, was at a previous council meeting to request consideration
to be on the Planning Commianion'a agenda to discuss outdoor adv-
ertising signs. At that time the City Council granted his
request and directed the City Administrator to bring this matter
to the attention of the Planning Commission. As you may be aware,
current city ordinances do not allow billboards (off -premise signs).
-5-
City Council 6/25/79
At their last meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed
documentation submitted by Blocher Adv. Co., a copy of which
is enclosed, along with an application for a sign to be placed
along Interstate 94 in Monticello on property owned by Maurice
Hoglund.
At their meeting the Planning Commission felt that the present ordinance
was a reasonable ordinance and decided to recommend no changes in the
present ordinance to the City Council of Monticello. In addition,
although there was not a specific request for a variance filed, the
Planning Commission also went on record as indicating they would
reco=arid rejection of a variance if a sign permit application were
to be filed by Blocher Sign Co. on behalf of Maurice Hoglund.
It should be pointed out that if the Monticello city ordinance were
to be amended, a hearing would have to be held by the Planning
Ce.-aizsion so the only action that the Council could take at
Monday night's meeting would be to request the Planning Commission
hold a hearing on the specific proposed amendment. If no action is
t1.i.cn, the ordinance would stand as it currently is today.
It should to pointed out that if no action is taken at Monday night's
meeting, this would stili allow the privilege and right of Blocher
Adv. to file a variance request with the approval of Maurice Hoglund
for the sign as indicated in the enclosure. It should be pointed
out for your information, in addition to the fact the sign would be
considered a billboard, it is also over three times as big as the
square footage the city currently allows. Proposed sign would he
625 square feet as opposed to the city's current ordinance provision
allowing only a sign of 200 square feet.
POSSIB6F. ACTION: As indicated above, no action is necessary unless
the City Council would like to consider having the Planning Com-
mission hold a hearing on a proposed amendment to the city's
ordinances rolativo to signs.
RPFBRENC6S: Planning Commission minutes of June 19, 1979, letter
from Blocher Adv. Co. Inc.
7. Consideration of Requesting the Planning Commission to Rold a Ncarinq
on Ordinance Amendments to Allow a combination of Residential and
Commorcial Uses in a B-3 and B-4 Districts.
According to the present Monticollo city ordinances, residential
uses are not allowed within a B-3 or B-4 zone. As a result, any
homes within a B-3 or B-4 zona aro currently non -conforming uses
and additionally, any residential portion of the structure that is
mixed with a commercial usage such as residential apartments above
tho Theatre in downtown Monticello or Johnson's Dept. Store are
currently non -conforming uses, it should be pointed out that those
are grandfatherod in and aro allowed to exist but can not be
expanded upon without approval by the City of Monticello.
-6-
City Council 6/25/79
Recently the City of Monticello has received two requests, one
from Dr. Joel Erickson and the other from Fred Topel to allow
apartments to be constructed over their commercial ventures. In
both of these cases approval was given. The Planning Commission
at that time recommended that the city planner propose an ordinance
amendment that would allow this type of use within a H-3 or B-4 zone.
Mr. John Uban, with Howard Dahlgren Associates, has prepared a
proposed amendment which is enclosed which would allow a com-
bination residential commercial structure as a conditional use
within a B-3 or B-4 zone. As you can see by the proposed amend-
ment, there would be certain conditions attached to this.
In reviewing this proposal the Planning Commission decided to
recommend to the Council that the amendment not be adopted.
Reason for the rejection of the ordinance amendment was the
concern with proliferating commercial areas with residential units
and concern for a comfortable setting for a residential apartment.
Additionally, there was concern for the suggestion by Mr. Uban
that the residential portion of such a combined structure be
larger or at least equal to the non-residential portion. In most
cases, the residential portion of the combined commercial- residential
uses not as big as the commercial uses, therefore, these uses
would still be non-cunforming uses. Additionally, it was felt brat
an ordinance amendment could be reviewed at a later date if another
request came before the City of Monticello.
It should be pointed out that John Uban felt the reasoning for
having the residential Portion, at least greater than or equal to
the non-residential portion of the combined use was to create a
better environment for the residential segment. That is, Mr.
Uban indicated he meant that if a lone apartment were to be put
above a commercial use, he would be concerned about the amount of
noise level, aesthetics, etc. Mr. Uban did feel that possibly
an office area which would be combined with the residential
area of equal or greater size, would certainly be compatible within
a B-3 or 0-4 zone.
As in the case of the previous item, the Planning Commission decided
to refer this matter directly to the City Council rather than
holding a public hearing on it since it did not fool that this
typo of ordinance would bo good for the City of Monticello at
thin time. Again, the only action available to the City Council
at Monday night's mooting would be to have the Planning Com-
mission hold a hearing, if the Council so desired, on a proposed
ordinance amendment. Otherwise, the Council does not have to take
action to reject the ordinance since again the ordinance would
be loft as is.
REFERENCES: Planning Commission minutes of Juno 19, 1979, along
with memorandum by John Uban relative to a proposed ordinance
amendment.
-7-
r_ity Council 6/25/79
8. Consideration of Awarding Contract on the 1979=1 Improvement Project.
On Friday, June 22, 1979, bids will be received on the 1979-1
Improvement Project. To refresh your memory, this improvement
project called for various improvements, including street, sexer
and water to the southern part of the Oakwood Industrial Park,
Joseph Culp property, Commercial Plaza 25 and other areas which
are south of the I-94 freeway and east of Highway 25 in Monticello.
Enclosed for your reference, is a copy of a letter from John
Badalich relative to the expected increase in cost on this
project and the reasons therefore.
Although this agenda supplement is being prepared prior to the
receipt of bids, preliminary tabulation of the bids will he sent
with the agenda, although it should he realized that these bid
tabulations will have to be reviewed by our engineers and a final
tabulation will be available at Monday night's meeting.
For your information, I have sent property owners that the City
would attempt to obtain easements from letters in respect to the
easements, description of the easement with the understanding that
these would be acquired for $1.00 each. If the council approves
the awarding of a contract, I will be in touch with these pro-
perty owners to obtain the actual easements themselves. however,
if may be well for the council if they would consider the approval
of the contract to make it contingent upon receipt of the actual
casements required. Additionally, the council may want to consider
the possibility of holding another public hearing, not required
by low, if the bids are quite high and they would like to get
the feeling of the property owners involved.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approving of contract for the
construction of the 1979 Improvement Project.
H.EFERENCES: Juno 15, 1979 letter from John Badalich, preliminary
tabulation of bids.
9. Consideration of Amending Monticello Ordinance. Relative to Building
Permit Fees.
In 1970, at the time the City of Monticello hired its first full-
time building inspector, It reviewed its building fee schedula.
Effective April 1, 1978 (oamo date as the commencement of Laren
Klain'a employment with the City of Monticello), the city's fee
schedule increased to 75% of the suggested foe schedule contained
in the Uniform Building Code. Additionally, the Uniform Building
Bode also suggested a proposed foo schedule for a plan chocking
foo that ranges from 50% to 650 of the permit itself. When the
City of Monticallo, in April of 1970, decided to adopt a fee
schedule equivalent to 75% of the suggested foe schedule in the
Uniform Building Coda it increased its fee schedule from the
previous achedulo by approximately 50%., but did not Include
the plan chocking foe.
-e-
City Council 6/25/79
For example, a $40,000 home under the city's previous fee
schedule at that time was $72.50 and the revision brought the
fee for this same home up to $117.75.
At the time the City of Monticello revised its fee schedule in
April of 1978, it was decided to further review the fee schedule
to see if there were any adjustments that should be made after
the lapse of at least one year period of time.
For your information, I have enclosed a computation indicating the
revenues and expenditures of the building inspection department
from the period of April 1, 1978 through March 31, 1979. As you
can see by this computation, allocating 25% of the building
inspector's time and expenditures to two areas, including Civil
Defense, Planning 6 Zoning and housing inspections, there still
remains a deficit of approximately $3,594 or for this department
to break even it would require an increase of fees of approximately
32%.
As a result it is recommended by the building inspector and myself
that the fee schedule now be increased to go to the full schedule
as suggested by the Uniform Building Code, but not including the
above referencnd plan checking fee. In effect then, a $40,000
home would result in a permit fee of $157.00 compared with the
present fee of $117.75, and compared to the fee prior to the
revision in April, 1978 of $72.00. This fee schedule is recommended
for the following reasons: 1) Revenues within matched expenditures
and there would be no subsidizing of the building inspection
department through general property taxes. 2) Fee schedule still
does not include a plan checking fee and as a result all the
fee on a $40,000 home will go to $157.00. In the metropolitan
area the same permit would cost approximately $235.50 in most
communities. 3) Most communities that have adopted the, Uniform
Building Code have also adopted the suggested fee schedule.
One of tho disadvantages, obviously, in adopting the increased fee
schedule is the added coat that will be passed on to the home owner.
In the case of the $40,000 home the fee schedule will have gone
from $72.00 to $157.00 in a period of time a little bit loss
than a year and ono -half. llowover, I don't believe that this
out weighs the advantages of adopting the fee schedule and passing
these Costs to the home owner who is building the home as opposed
to the general property owners in Monticello. Additionally, be-
cause of inflation it will he necessary from time to time to
review the fee schedule. However, 1 think now that we have it
M at its present level it will not be necessary to increase the
schedule as dramatically as we have, in the past year and one-half.
POSSIBLE. ACT ION1Cone ideratIon of adoption of suggested fee schedule
\ in the Uniform BuildingCoda, exclusive of plan checking fee.
\V, REFERENCESi Computation on revenues and expenditures of Building
0 Inspection Department from April 1, 1978 through March 31, 1979.
-9-
city k-uuncii oiz3i,7
10. Consideration of Approval of 1978 Audit.
As you recall Bob Carlson, with Gruys Johnson and Associates, reviewed
the 1978 audit with the City Council of Monticello at our last
meeting.
As you recall it was decided to table the actual approval of the
audit until the entire council had a further opportunity to review
the financial statements themselves. It should be pointed out
that Bob Carlson will be at the Monticello City Hall at 3:00,
Monday afternoon to review statements with council members Fair
and Maus. However, any other members are certainly encouraged to
attend if they have any questions relative to the audit itself.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval of 1978 audit.
REFERENCES: 1978 audit, previously sent out.
Gary Wiebor
/ CitylAdminiotrator
GW/ja
0
\ '.'�,/: 'vim� ry ...T i�, o'•q� «..{'jj` { �. �, ,�/... .i i.
� "" Y L • J•J)� " � r •
isiYPi.. •'�.``\ � ��_ J .t�� w ` �' 1--.-_ c`•... �� b f f 4 J;�
i .. •� =.r-t� .�- Ed' �� �,.. \, ... L.-- •mil I�
F :ei"p�! . • ,f' . t '"`
.• ; i" ;,a ` i ! ti� 1 b -� ;r arta VOlcaxs
1010
`�'., `�.• `�:�,J�a�'�A�•�? 1 j . JIIV�:I���-��.-t'�� r -`.:I % �:; ae "r �.._�
„
`` HIGHWAY
N0. 84
n wts, stiff fA
4t s • ...
i"• \ . ;, P ` ,may
4
CURB`�`NE3 INCe
/ntrno►duc@s
-CONCRETE CURBING
-FOR ALL. SEASONS
At Substentfol-Sevings Over Poured -In -Place mothodsl'
Jl
Now
You Can
Realize
Substantial
Savings Over
Poured -In -Place
Concrete Curbing !
For additional information contact your local dealer or.
�.F
` , CURBSTONE, INC.
M Subsidmy of ChandArr- Wolbarr Vault Co.)
2280 Hamlin@ Ave. No. / SL Paul, MN 66113
Curbstone is a new, economical curbing that
can be installed on any asphalt roadway or
parking lot Developed in Sweden over 10 years
ago by a city engineer, Curbstone has proven
through years of use in Sweden, Europe and
now the United States that it offers many
distinct advantages over the conventional
poured -in-place method of curb construction
Today, over 80% of all curbing in Sweden is
the Curbstone type.
* Serra Time And Money 1
The "instant installation" feature eliminates
costly and time consuming trenching, form
building, pouring, finishing and curing. You can
save significantly over poured -in-place methods
of curb construction.
* Eliminates Work Bottlenecks I
You can precisely plan your paving schedule
because Curbstone is applied after the asphalt
is laid. There are no paving "bottlenecks"
created by workers applying conventional
curbing ahead of the paving equipment And
because Curbstone can be installed in the most
severe weather conditions, it eliminates many
costly interruptions and delays in work
schedules.
* Veraatilel
Since Curbstone comes in many different shapes
and varying rediuses, it can conform to any plan.
It can also be applied to old, existing asphalt
* ReWbilky Band illortablllty 1
Because it can be removed and reused without
noticeable damage to the road surface,
Curbstone can be used as permanent curbing
or for re-routing traffic during road construction
or for changes in layout and expansion of
parking lots.
it Dorablllty To Mat Any Weather
Condition 1
Curbstone is made of a very high grade concrete
(4,500 psi air entrained) in a controlled factory
environment, and steel reinforced for extra
strength. This along with its patented "tongue
and groove" interlock design and patented
fastening system assures you of years of
durable, maintenance free service that will
withstand the effects of winter plowing, snow,
ice, water and salt. •
Phone (612) 831.1234 U.B. Patent No. 3.822116011
EasilyandM&Roundedec
ce chip
ickiy anchorand fire
with specialamage
galvanized
steel pins!'
Three integrally
molded galvanized
fastening strips along
the back and one
on the end o1
fullsectionsl ,
DUQA&IN
0
4,500 p.s.i.
Test—, high quality
air entrained,
ainforced concrete
resists frost
and salt!
IF . Tongue and I
groove joints equalize
strain and spread impact
shock to adjacent
sections and give a
smooth, level surface
without uneven
rises! I
RADIUS SCALE
25'+r
10
1
3
Radius above 10' are made with angled end
18" straight curbstone sections.
Slight slope
GENERAL ESTIMATING
SPECIFICATIONS
TYPE
LENGTH
PINS
Full size straight section
36.0"
3 +
Halt size straight section
18.0"
2 + 1
�✓
Transition for driveway Idown)
18.0"
2 + 1
Transition for driveway (up)
18.0"
2 + 1
Drive over I1 i " to 3" slantedl
18.0"
2 + 1
90°corner l insidel
12"equiv.
1 + 1
900 corner louisidel
12" equiv.
, + 1
Radius section 118" r insidel
28.3"
2 + 1
Radius section 13.0' insidel
28.3"
2 + 1
Radiu sections (5.0'r)
23.5"
2 + 1
Radius sections f10.0'rl
31.4"
2 + 1
Radius sections 115.0' rl
18"
2 + 1
Radius sections 125' + r insidel
18"
2 + 1
Radius sections (25' + r outside)
18"
2 + I
See individual cross sections on data sheets for specific sizes
of Curbstones (these measurements
apply for all common
types being produeedl.
a I I,r1r I, r.'li'll,r1:'
Vr) ;�(!r•'
lj�'
r r
III t
cJr'
� Blocwtop apron or orerlay 10" to 12" rrinlmum 3'
CURBSTONE,INCE Chand er-W ilbon Vault Co.)�
2280 HAMLINE AVENUE NORTH / ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55113 / PHONE (612) 631.1234
FRONT vlrcws
,END
1-714:
113NOMINAL INSTALUO -1 1
TOP VIEWS
4 -
TRANSITION DRIVE OVER TRANSITION
UP NOTES*. DOWN
'Ajr.RNATt\* TD END STRAP ON THE
DRIA; OVER SECTION 15 USE OF'
ASPHALT UIMENT.
*ALL SECTIONS 119MY'1IMAL INISTALLF-0
SGrsL BTIZAJGI*T AILS AND
Uk)r'r PLATF—
frolt 4ruwn4G=P. OCTAILS AJ,3D Nol-r-S
REVISIONS C&INFORMO COMCMTE CURBS
N9. DATE 6V PiZCCA5T IN MOMM UNT5
"P
TWSITION5 DOWN
ORIVE-OKC1.
4. AUG. 77 64
&TO. kmu in.
END FRONT VIEW FRONT V IC W END
1 5
'FFN�IC Ga00V6 I�_,p'ryp,N-Mti IayLM+� ,,,� I S,'NOMr•" AISTrtL6D I 'MALE'TONGUE
rM., I I I OIECP
1.5' STPUcl GI T UNIT 3.0' STRAI GN T UN IT
"N�IF .G (.IIaJ f ULl '.al_f. T10N
-I' Fl n -
TOP VILW 1 NOTES' TOP view
B TOLPREVENT
(1). REI NFORCE NEWT r �3 REpAR, LEIJG7H Wly: • CN I P P I N fa.
(:a.GALVANIZED STRAP M NAILING THE_
CURBING TIO ASPHUT MID AID REWrOME-111E4T.
(3)• SLOT t END STRAP FCR COWWECTIAK7 PIECES.
(4). STRAP 4 KNOB TD ALIGN AND SECURE..
�e a )tj'A (y)• SPEM M1w6►WESF AUAV STEEL A141L OR
COATED WAIL -TD TASTEN CURBS SD g5PH4.T.
(r.). Cum M. PICsE OP CVRBndG W" WE164
APPROK• T?W/LINEAt- FOoT.
(7). JOINT SEN.Co. ISNOT REQUIRED, BUT MAY
BE USED, W DESIRMON UNEVEN PAVING.
W-ST2Ek)&TN-4SO0#PSI MW(AAU@A(SCE
14 LAA _-67yr.' LOW. SPECS),uaturafu.fiU CDuccerC.
5 fig.
REVISIONS RFINFORCEZ CONCRETE. CUR55
NQ DATE. B� PRPCAST IN NODULAR UNITS
CK
BAFILL OYE
(3)W MNLA .w �TQA I
�'c4) / STRAIG14T SECTIONS
(}) �KNpB a lON6 END 2 3.0' Afwo 1.5' uNrrs I avm erTraorwan LEVA— W
..
_6yc IA
U. rra. iauG 77 B14
ST Z.,KM ws. ....n M10 uV (Siv _
-rop ve\NS
M IF I END v?.0"T vil<W END
;-7 Q\
10'RADIUS I i9'NOMINAL PiSTALLE-D
7.,Tm
15'RAtDIUS KWIK-CLIZ5
171 Fl.
25'- RAD US
CONVEY,
2.!5+ RADIUS NOTF-*.
CONCAVC. %ra STRAtIG4*T SXTINS
MTAIL- PLkTF- FOR
FU nGfZ INFORMATION
REVISIONS REINFORCED CONCRETE CURBS
No, DATE 6y PRECAST IN MODULAR UNITS
�' n n 2 LONG RaDIU5 UNITS
5d4 Q CON elk
4 AUG. -77
AN- CRD;6
Ig'R
18'FI,AOIUS QUARTER CIRCLb
rwti
INlI�B
u
90° CORNERS
3.o'RADIUS
NOTE _ ,�
SES STRDrIGIkT SECTION ""
DETAIL PLATE FOR
FURTHI=R INFORMATION
4 1
ou oae
5.0� R caJvax v:N`�
1
(MI �10s
f �
A
S RADI US
c
U
REVISIONS RwNF-0RCED COMCRETE CURBS
N4. WE 6Y PRECAST IN MODULAR UMMS
FLA2 CURBS � COR CRS
LI..�� ;�v AUG.17 614 �J
IM vlrc J• +•••o Mp u (�