City Council Agenda Packet 06-23-1980� N
AGENDA
I� REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
June 23, 1980 - 7:30 P. M.
JJ 4 Q
Mayor: Arve Grimsmo
Council Members: Dan Blonigen, Fran Fair, Ken Maus, Philip White. r f
Meeting to be taped. ,I WIrN
°&
` Citizens Comments -e L,
�x a'\1. Consideration of Sign Ordinance Amendment Regulating Advertising
Signs Greater than 200 Square Feet. 0 W IL'.te !.d 1k-5
2. Consideration of an Ordinance Amendment to Allow a Day Care Facility
A<< within an R-2 (Single 8 Two Family Residential) Zone as a Conditional Use.
3. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit - ARC Day Care Center.
a
f� 4. Consideration of an Ordinance Amendment to Allo- the Division of Lots
V�
,,\\%o Containing More than One Dwelling Unit for Purposes of Ownership.
P5. Consideration of the Extension of Variance Requests by Scott's. Inc.
to Continue the Use of a Mobile Home in a B-3 Zone.
P6. Consideration of Request for Permission to Hold a Tractor Pulling
Contest and One (1) Day Non-intoxicating On-Sale License -
A Monticello Jaycee's.
" 1. Consideration of an Acceptance of a Step iiI Treatment Works Grant
r from the E.P.A.
8. Consideration of Extent of City's Involvement in a Comprehensive
Community Education Joint Powers Agreement with the School District
v` of Monticello.
�\\ 9. Approval of Minutes - June 9, 1980 Regular Meeting, /
10. Approval of Bills - June 1880.
Unfinished Business
Wrightco Report
New Business - 0
Consideration of Special Meeting to Interview Architects for Library-
Review of 1979 Audit by Gruys. Johnson 8 Associates. e -
��
�� c
City Council - 6/23/80
AGE14DA SUPPLEMENT
1. Consideration of Sign Ordinance Amendment Regulati:iq Advertising Signs*
Greater than 200 Square Feet.
Presently, according to Monticello City Ordinances, advertising signs or
billboards are required to be removed by August 21, 1980, unless the City
Council amends this ordinance provision. An ordinance amendment has been
prepared by John Uban, of Howard Dahlgren Associates, and reviewed by
the Planning Commission for possible adoption.
According to the ordinance amendment as prepared by John Uban, all adver-
tising signs would be considered a non -conforming use and allowed to
remain until such time as the parcel of land on which they were sited
was developed, and at that time, the sign would have to be removed within
60 days. As a result of this provision, all existing advertising signs
would have been grandfathered in and allowed to stay until such time as
the property was developed.
According to the conversation our Zoning Administrator, Loren Klein, had
with Del Blocher, of Blocher Outdoor Advertising Company, which is one
of the two companies which has the billboards which currently exist
in Monticello, Mr. Blocher felt that the ordinance amendment was a fair
amendment, although obviously he would have liked to see the present
billboards grandfathered in forever, and also the possibility of allnwing
further in the future. Another sign company, Franklin Sign Company,
which currently does not have any billboards in the City of Monticello,
obviously feels that the ordinance amendment should allow for additional
billboards.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS: At their last meeting, the Planning
Commission reviewed the ordinance amendment prepared by John Uban and
decided to modify Mr. Uban's proposal by having the amendment apply only
to advertising signs in excess of 200 square feet. The Planning Commission
wanted to give further thought to the possibility of allowing advertising
signs which currently exist that are less than 200 square feet to remain
regardless of whether they were currently the principal use or not the
principal use. For your information, it appears that all signs that are
normally considered billboards or that are greater than 200 square feet
now exist on lots that are undeveloped and therefore, currently are the
principal use. However, in the case of signs that are less than 200 sq. tt.,
in some cases these signs are or, lots that already have another principal
use. Additionally, the Planning Commission felt that there would be the
possibility of allowing these signs that are less than 200 sq. ft. to continue
and also to possibly allow additional signs of less than 200 sq. ft. to
provide some type of direction for the traveler.
C •An "advertising sign" according to the City of Monticello ordinance definition,
is a sign that is an off -premise sign that advertises a particular product or
place which is not at the site where the sign exists.
City Council - 6/23/80
In addition to the question of advertising signs (off -premise signs), the
Planning Commission also considered the requirements that would apply to
all other non -conforming signs, that is signs that do not meet the current
City ordinances because they are flashing, too high, too many signs, etc.
Presently, the ordinance amendment requires these type of signs also be
removed by August 21, 1980. it was decided that the Planning Commission
would take this issue up at their next meeting and make a further recom-
mendation to the City Council .
Although the Planning Commission obviously isn't finished with their complete
review of the signs as they pertain to the advertising signs which are
less than 200 square feet, plus the on -premise non -conforming signs, it was
decided that the major issue was the billboards, and this is the reason that
the Planning Commission's recommendation is going forth to the City Council
at this time, and at a later date, the recommendations from the Planning
Commission as they apply to the other types of signs will be forthcoming.
One additional element that John Uban is suggesting is that the sign
company and the property owner had to sign an agreement according to which they
will abide by the provisions of the ordinance, and this agreement must be
on file by July 23, 1980, provided that the City Council adopts the
ordinance amendment as suggested by the Planning Commission as of June 23,
1980. In this way, there is no question that the property owner and the
sign company are aware of the provisions of the ordinance, and if the
agreement is not sent back within the stated time, this sign in effect
becomes a non -conforming sign which must be removed immediately.
Ar, cx`a stivc --nount of ti,—..c has been spent by the City Planncr, the
Planning Commission, the City Council and the Staff in struggling
with the issue of signs, and I feel that the ordinance amendment suggested
by the Planning Commission is a good one. In this fashion, it puts the
owner of the property in the position where he at least has a choice to
make whether to remove the sign or to develop the property, and additionally,
does not require the signs come down at any certain definitive point in time.
As a result, the City avoids the possibility of having to award compensation
to those signs that have to be removed. It should be pointed out that I
will have our Zoning Administrator, Loren Klein, review this matter with Gary
Pringle, our City Attorney. to see if he sees any legal implications involved.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of an Ordinance Amendment which would allow
advertising signs in excess of 200 square feet to exist until such time as
the particular lot were developed. This ordinance amendment would read as
follows:*,
**Note: Ordinance Amendments require 4/5's vote
Cof Council for approval.
- 2 -
City Council - 6/23/80
10-3-9: SIGNS
B. Permitted and Prohibited Signs:
2. Prohibited Signs:
(g). Advertising signs, in excess of 200 sq. ft., except
those signs which were in place on or before June 23,
1980, and which are the principal use of the lot of
record as of the above date, and which have an agree-
ment on file with the City on or before July 23, 1980,
in the form so designated by the City Administrator
which is signed by the property owner and the adver-
tising sign owner and notarized, may continue as a
non -conforming use until such time as the lot of
record above is developed, in which case, the non-
conforming advertising sign must be removed within
60 days after written notice from the Building
Official.
REFERENCES: May 29, 1980 memorandum from John Uban, Planning Commission
Minutes of June 10, 1980.
2. Consideration of an Ordinance Amendment to Allow a Day Care Facility within
an R-2 (Single and Two Family Residential) Zone as a Conditional Use.
PURPOSE: To consider an amendment which became necessary as a result of d
request by the ABC Day Care Center (see Agenda Item N3) to allow a Day
Care facility within an R-2 zone as a conditional use.
Currently, Monticello Ordinances allow a day care home with up to five
children as a permitted use in an R-1, R-2 and R-3 zone. Additionally, the
ordinance presently allows a day care home with greater than five children
as a conditional use within an R-3 zone. However, a day care home of more
than five children is not addressed in an R-1 or R-2 zone.
In reviewing this matter, it was felt that rather than rezone property in
some cases to R-3 which would also allow a multiple dwelling up to 12 units,
it would be better to not have to go to rezoning to allow such a use within
an R-2 zone, but still have some control by means of a conditional use.
This control would be exercised in the conditions that are contained within
the ordinance itself, along with the fact that all conditional uses do require
a public hearing and property owners will be notified within 350' of the
request.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS: At their last meeting, the Planning
Commission held a public hearing on the matter, and no objections to the
ordinance amendment itself were expressed. The Planning Commission voted
unanimously to recommend approval of the ordinance amendment. This ordi-
nance amendment would allow a day care center of more than five children
as a conditional use within an R-2 zone, provided the following conditions
are met:
- 3 -
C
City Council - 6/23/80
A. No overnight facilities are provided for the children served.
Children are delivered and removed daily.
B. The front yard depth shall be a minimum of thirty-five (35) feet.
C. Adequate off-street parking and access is provided in compliance
with Section 10-3-5 of this Ordinance.
D. Adequate off-street loading and service entrances are provided in
compliance with Section 10-3-6 of this Ordinance
E. The site and related parking and service shall be served by an
arterial or collector street of sufficient capacity to accommodate
the traffic which will be generated.
F. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall
be in compliance with Section 10-3-9 of this Ordinance.
G. The provisions of Section 10-22-1 (E) of this Ordinance are
considered and satisfactorily met.
H. The regulations and conditions of the Minnesota Department of Public
Welfare, Public Welfare Manual 11 31 30 as adopted, amended and/or
changed are satisfactorily met.
1. A written indication of preliminary, pending or final license
approval from the regulatory welfare agency is supplied to the City.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Cor.sideiatior. of Ordinaace AmeiijuiciiL Lv allow a Day
Care Center as a conditional use within
in
F 4 n R-2 zone, along with the
conditions stated above.** OPC 1� .f
REFERENCES: Planning Commission minutes of June 10, 1980.
3. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit - ABC Day Care Center.
PURPOSE: Consider a request by the ABC Day Care Center, which presently is
operating out of the Oakwood School, to utilize the existing First Baptist
Church on West Broadway as a facility for a day care center.
As a result of the City of Monticello's purchase of the Oakwood School,
along with its decision to remove the building, it has become necessary
for the ABC Day Care Center to relocate. This application for a conditional
use is to utilize the present First Baptist Church, which is in an R-2 zone,
as a day care facility. According to Marcella Corrow, one of the owners of
the ABC Day Care Center, the First Baptist Church is ideal due to the fact
that it lends itself with little modification to a Day Care Center. For your
information, the First Baptist Church is proposing to use the additional land
••Ordinance Amendments require 4/5's vote
of Council for approval.
- 4 -
City Council - 6/23/80
they own adjacent to the present church for construction of a new facility.
Initially, it was a thought that the present Baptist Church would one day
become the parsonage, and a new church built; however, presently, the
Minister of the First Baptist Church has already located to another
residence and it is not necessary to have a parsonage right on site. For
your further information, Mr. Brad Larson is no longer considering the
development of Townhouses, which were previously approved by the City
Council, on this site.
In order for the City Council to consider a conditional use for the ABC
Day Care Center, it will have been necessary to have the item in agenda
item 2 approved prior to this particular request. If the Ordinance
Amendment is not adopted, the only way the ABC Day Care Center could
go into the present First Baptist Church would be to have the property
rezoned to R-3, and then request a conditional use, and this is alluded
to in the previous agenda item.
At their Public Hearing, which was held May 20, 1980 on this subject, the
Planning Commission received no objections to the proposal and recommended
unanimously to the Council to approve of the conditional use request.
All the provisions of the suggested conditional use permit will be
met by the ABC Day Care Center if approved.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval of conditional use permit for
the ABC Day Care Center to utilize the existing First Baptist Church.—
REFERENCES: Letter from Marcella Corrow. Q�j cU/v
4. Consideration of an Ordinance Amendment to Allow the Division of Lots
Containinq More Than One Dwellinq Unit for Purposes of Ownershio.
PURPOSE: Recently, the City of Monticello received a request from Quintin
I.anners to allow a two-family dwelling which would be owned by two individual
parties to be constructed on two City lots. There appeared to be some
question in reviewing the Ordinance of whether a variance was required at
that time, and it was decided that a variance hearing would be held and a
variance was granted, but ultimately, the Planner was asked for his recom-
mendation of clarification of the existinq Ordinance and a possible
Ordinance Amendment to allow this type of use in the future.
Enclosed, please find the May 22, 1980 memorandum from John USan in which
he indicates he feels that the present zoning ordinance could be interpreted
to allow the approval of the division of lots containing multiple unit
structures in order that the individual units be sold without the necessity
of a variance. However, he did offer an ordinance amendment to more clearly
address the issue, and such amendment would be added to Section 10-3-3, and
would read as fnllnws:
"Conditional Use Permits require 4/5's
vote of Council for approval.
-5-
City Council - 6/23/80
(E) Lots of multiple housing unit structures may be divided for
the purpose of condominium ownership provided that the prin-
cipal structure containing the housing units shall meet the
setback distances of the applicable zoning district. In
addition, each condominium unit shall have the minimum lot
area for the type of housing unit and usable open space as
specified in the Area and Building Size Regulations of this
Ordinance. Such lot areas may be controlled by an individual
or joint ownership.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: At their last meeting, the Planning
Commission held a public hearing on this issue, and no objections were
heard. The Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend approval
of the adoption of an ordinance amendment in order that the matter be
clarified.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of an Ordinance Amendment to allow the
division of lots containing more than one dwelling unit for purposed of
ownership. ••
REFERENCES: May 22, 1980 memorandum from Jgnb Uban and the Planning
Commission Minutes of June 10, 1980. Q4) 011�
5. Consideration of the Extension of Variance Requests by Scott's, Inc.
to Continue the Use of a Mobile Home in a B-3 Zone.
oi_manSE: Scott's. Inc. iseeue:ting a y-ian V•i:..
nuc the •ili
t o—f n of their mobile home, which currently is situated just west of the ,
Monticello Ford Site at the 1-94 interchange.
This request would necessitate the following variances be approved:
A. Variance from the building code provisions since mobile homes do
not meet currently building codes.
B. Variance from Monticello's zoning ordinance requiring that all
mobile homes be only allowed in an R-4 zone.
C. Variance from landscaping requirements.
D. Variance from hardsurfaced requirements.
E. Variance from curbing requirements.
F. Variance from provision that allows only one principal use on a par-
ticular parcel.
"Ordinance Amendments require 4/5's vote
of Council for approval.
6-
City Council - 6/23/80
To give you some further background in this item, Scott's. Inc. did in
fact, at one time, own the land that the Monticello Ford site is now
situated on. Scott's, Inc. did utilize the facility at the time for a
brokerage office as explained in Bob Pederson's letter, which is enclosed
and dated May 31, 1980. This use existed prior to the area being annexed
into the City of Monticello, and normally would have been treated as
a permitted, non -conforming use. However, two things should be mentioned,
in checking with the Township Clerk at that time, Marge Goetzke, there
was no record that the mobile home site was approved when it was in the
Township; and furthermore, the mobile home itself was moved from one area
to another,which is in vir,lation of Monticello ordinances.
On May 14, 1919, the City Council did approve a variance to allow the
mobile home to exist until January 1, 1980. In January of 1980, upon
a request from Bob Pederson, the City Council extended the variance to
June 1, 1980. Since an application for a variance was currently on file,
the City Zoning Administrator has not enforced this particular provision
until the City Council can deal with this item at the June 23, 1980 meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: At their June 10, 1980 meeting, the
Planning Commission decided to approve the variance requested, but not on a
permanent basis, but rather to approve the variance to June 1, 1981, with
the notation that they may be able to come in at the end of each one-year
period and request renewal of these variances. in this way, the Planning
Commission felt that the City would still have control because the variances
would have to be renewed annually, however, at the same time it was con-
sidered at the front end that there probably would be reauested a renewal
of this permit each year so that the City is not surprised that the ordi-
nances are not being adhered to.
In light of the fact that, to a certain extent, the business existed prior
to being annexed into the City of Monticello, I feel that it merits some
consideration for granting the variance requests, but as previously indicated
above, there appears to be a question if it ever was even approved by the
Township. Additionally, there might be some merit in considering the var-
iances relative to the landscaping and the hardsurfacing because of the
type of operation that exists and the fact that it is only a temporary type
or seasonal type of use during the year. However, on the other hand, the
City Council may want to look at the fact that previous various extensions
have been approved twice before with the understanding that the Ordinance
provisions would be adhered to, and an analogy can he made between this
type of operation and that of Robert Davis's auction house, whernhy the
City Council indicated that they might be willing to grant a variance for a
period of one year, but at the end of that one year that the hardsurface
requirements and other requirements would have to be adhered to.
In the Ordinance itself, relative to variances, it does address the issue
of non -economic hardship, and that portion of the Ordinance reads as follows:
- 7 -
City Council - 6/23/80
"The City Council, serving as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, shall
after receiving the written reports and recommendations of the Planning
Condition and the City Staff, make a finding of fact and decide upon the
request for a variance by approving or denying the same in part of whole
where it is alleged by the applicant that a non -economic hardship in the
reasonable use of a specific parcel of property exists. A hardship that
by some reason of narrowness, shallowness or shape of a specific parcel
of property or lot existing and of record upon the effective date of this
Ordinance, or that by reason of exceptional topographic or water condi-
tions of a specific parcel of land or lot, . . . . . . . . .
Y ' In applying this standard to the variance in question, it appears that the
(� issue is more an economic issue rather than a non -economic issue. Further-
more, in the case of the Clearwater Truck Stop, which does have continual
etruck traffic, hardsurfacing is present and it is not unusual for truck
9 %s stops to have this type of surfacing.
Q J�\
��% POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval or denial of variances requested,
n p and if approved, to what date they would be extended.**
u REFERENCES: June 10, 1980 Planning Commission Minutes along with May 31,
1980 1 etter from Scott's, Inc.
Consideration of Request for Permission to Hold a Tractor Pullinq Contest
and One 111 Day Non-Intoxicatinq On -Sale License - Monticello Jaycee's.
The Monticello Jaycee's, along with the St. Michael Jaycee's, have requested
permission to hold a tractor pulling contest on Curtis Hoglund's property
July 13, 1980 (Curt's Storage 8 Sales).
in addition, the Jaycee's have asked for a one (1) day license to sell
3.2 beer at the event, which is scheduled from 1:00 to 5:00 P.M..
According to Dennis Holker, of the Monticello Jaycee's, Curt Hoglund has
agreed to let the Jaycee's use his property for the contest. They plan to
have seating available at the event and indicated that parking will be
available on Curt's property.
The St. Michael Jaycee's will be providing liability insurance coverages
for the participants and spectators.
Representatives of the two Jaycee organizations will be at Monday night's
meeting to answer any questions you may have.
All but fnur property owners along Mississippi Drive have been contacted
by the organization, with apparently no objections to the event being
held.
"Variance requests require 4/5's vote
Of Council for approval.
- 8 -
City Council - 6/23/80
( The Jaycee's have indicated that they will be contacting the local Fire
Department for possible use of the water tank truck for controlling dust,
etc.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of granting approval to the St. Michael
and Monticello Jaycee's to hold a tractor pulling contest and issuance
of a one (1) day 3.2 license.
7. Consideration of an Acceptance of a Step IIi Treatment Works Grant from
the EPA.
PURPOSE: Notification has been received from the EPA that the City of
Monticello has been awarded a grant in the amount of $4,149,300 and the 0
reason for this item on the agenda is to have the formal approval of the ��� ■
grant acceptance.
V
N For your information, the total project cost for the treatment works plus �t ,✓�01
the interceptor sewer that would run through the School property to the
A intersection of the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks and Washington f �S
\ \ Street is $5,532,400. Of this amount, the City's share would be 10%, or P ,'
\ $553,240. Additionally, if the City of Monticello wishes to construct
I) 0 the trunk sewer from Washington Street and the Burlington Northern V
`l Railroad tracks westerly down 5�5 Street and eventually to hook up withp 1
the Chestnut Lift Station, there will be an additional cost of approxi- Q
mately $1.000.000. of which the r.it.y of Mnntiratln i< tryi.ng to obtain Q
v funding for. Currently, the EPA has determined that this would not ti
qualify for funding, but the City of Monticello is pursuing the possibility �� S
of designating this portion of trunk sewer as an interceptor sewer and thus 1 Y�
fund eligible. 9A, -&HA. L, '$I L��el`�L � Iwl$L q�
John Badalich will be at Monday night's meeting to review in more detail
acceptance of the grant and the timetable.
POSSIBLE ACTiON:I.Consideration of motion to formally accept the grant
conveyed by the Environmental Protection Agency in the amount of $4,149,300
for updating the City's present Treatment Plant and installation of inter-
ceptor sewer. L QA. 'a,
13 �l 1
8. Consideration of Extent of City's Involvement in a Comprehensive Community
Education Joint Powers Agreement with the School District of Monticello.
At a previous meeting, the City Council authorized the Mayor to appoint
two members to an ad hoc committee to consider the formalization of a
joint powers agreement with the independent School District #882 to
provide a joint recreation program.
- 9 -
City Council - 6/23/80
As you may recall, the initial reason for adopting a joint powers agreement
was for the comment in the audit report by the State Auditor's office, which
read in part:
"No written mutual agreement between the City of Monticello and the Indepen-
dent School District 4882 for the operation of this Joint Recreation Program
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 471.15-.16 or 411.59 was found. We
recommend the City Council, by resolution, adopt the program of recreation
or establish a cooperative program with Independent School District 4882
pursuant to provisions of the aforementioned statutes."
Since it was decided a more formalized agreement should be adopted with
the School District to update the old agreement that was on file, it was
decided that it would be also a good opportunity to look at the whole
philosophy behind the joint recreation program.
Mayor Arve Grimsmo has appointed Council Members Dan Blonigen and Fran
Fair to serve on this committee, and these members have asked that this
item be placed on the Council Agenda to determine the City's extent in
such a program. At the last ad hoc co=ittee meeting, which consisted
of the City's representatives previously mentioned, along with representa-
tion from the School Board along with members of the Community Education
Advisory Board, there was a discussion about the possibility of the City
being involved in more than just the joint recreation program and being
involved in the entire Community Education Program in terms of support.
It was felt by the Council's representatives on the committee, Fair and
Blonigen, that before they could go any further in discussing this, that
these members should bring back the issue of the City's extent in
community education to the entire Council. Basically, the choices would
be if the City wants to get involved in:
A. Joint Recreation Program - Summer only.
B. Recreation Program throughout the year.
C. Entire Community Education Program.
Enclosed, please find a summary of the budget for 1980 and the Summer
Recreation costs submitted by Duane Gates with the Community Education
School, which totalled $11,460 and also the other recreation expenses
during the year, which totalled $13,140. It should be noted that these
costs totalled $24,600 and approximately another $20,000 has to be raised
by the local School District to support the remaining portion of the
community ed program that does not involve recreational activities. (At
the last ad hoc committee, Shelly Johnson indicated that the entire commu-
nity education budget was approximately $96,000, but reducing that by
fees charged and State Aid,brings the total net cost to the School
District to approximately $44,000).
- 10 -
City Council - 6/23/80
i have surveyed surrounding communities to get an idea of what funds they
contribute, if any, to a joint recreation and/or community education program
with their particular School District. Following is a list of communities
that responded and the amount that they contributed:
Becker $30,000
Morris 20,000
Buffalo 17,925
Sauk Rapids 13,315
Benson 10,000
Annandale 6,000
Cokato 4,200
Delano 2,500
Maple Lake 1,500
Big Lake 1,250
Additionally, communities of Albertville, Rockford, St. Michael and Jackson
returned the survey indicating that they had no joint powers agreement with
their respective School District. This is not to say that they do not, on
their own, provide some kind of recreation program through the City itself.
It should be pointed out that the City currently has in its budget for 1980
$3,500 for the Joint Summer Recreation Program. if it were not for the
School District, the City of Monticello would easentialiy have the following
choices:
A. Adopt its own summer recreation program with the $3,500.
B. Provide no summer recreation program.
C. Utilize the $3,500 plus expand the summer recreation program.
D. Provide a summer recreation program and decrease the activity that
the City may want to provide.
E. Reduce some other aspect of its current budget, such as the park fund,
and provide in lieu thereof an expanded summer recreation program.
Essentially, It appears that for the amount of services that the City
receives through this joint summer recreation program, the City is getting
by relatively cheap. However, Dan Blonigen would like to point out that
the fact that the citizens of the City of Monticello, in effect, would be
paying twice for summer recreation program - once through the School District
tax levy and then again for any portion that the City of Monticello picks up.
In effect this is true, however, the City may have to ask itself what level
of services beyond the $3,500 it is expending would the City be providing
and how much would this cost. On the other hand, the City of Monticello does
constitute 75% of the tax base of Independent School District /882 and
in effect is already picking up 75% of the program.
31
City Council - 6/23/80
Per the request of Dan Blonigen, 1 have reviewed the budget for 1980 for
other similar types of programs that could be considered the City's effort
that it does through its own programs, which would be the Senior Citizens
Center and the Park Fund. The Senior Citizens Center fund for this year
is $12,950, along with the Park program which is $34,890. Mr. Blonigen
feels that this certainly is a part of the City's effort to provide a
recreation program already.
To get an idea on what the effect of any increase would be, Independent
School District #882 prepared various comparisons, but in surnnary, it
amounts to presently that a person with a $40,000 home in the City of
Monticello is paying 41d per year, including homestead credit, for the
City's contribution of $3,500, and a person with a $50,000 home is paying
58¢ per year, including homestead credit. For every $1,000 that the
City may add, it would cost the resident of the City 12 additional cents
per year for a $40,000 home and 17d per year with a $50,000 home. On
the other hand, it would only save each resident of the School District
9t per year on a $40,000 home and 13t per year on a $50,000 home. Again,
to a certain extent it depends on how the matter is viewed.
Obviously, the above is a lot of facts, information and statistics, 1
feel if the City does ::ant any further input inlu what types of prugrdms
are to be offered through the School District in terms of either summer
recreation program, the entire recreation program or the entire
community education program, it would be necessary for the City of
Monticello to increase its share. On the other hand, if the City of
Monticello is not interested in any phase but the summer recreation
program, it might want to consider just that portion in writing an
agreement that would be commensurate with that.
POSSIBLE ACTION: While there isn't a joint powers agreement to be
approved at this point by the Council, a decision should be made to
the extent of the City's involvement in the following:
A. Joint Recreation Summer Program.
B. Remaining Recreation Program.
C. Entire Community Education Program.
REFERENCES: Sumner recreation costs for 1980 and recreation expenses
during the year submitted by Independent School District 0882.
- 12 -
MIIIUTES
i REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, June 10, 1980 - 7:30 P. M.
Members Present: Jim Ridgeway, Dick Martie, Ed Schaffer, John Bondhus.
Loren Klein (ex -officio)
Members Absent: Dave Bauer.
1. Approval of Minutes.
Motion was made by Ed Schaffer, seconded by Martie and unanimously
carried to approve the minutes of the May 20, 1980 Regular Meeting.
2. Public Hearing - Monticello Sian Ordinance.
Mr. Bob Ryan, of Howard Dahlgren Associates, explained a letter from John
Uban, dated May 29, 1980, regarding sign ordinance amendments allowing
existing billboards to remain as a non -conforming use.
Mr. Ryan explained a possible ordinance amendment which could be added
to our present ordinance in Section 10-3-9 which would deal with permitted
and prohibited signs, and be added as subsections thereto.
1
Also, a draft copy of an agreement form which could be used between the
City of Monticello and the property and advertising sign owners was
discussed. This form could give the City a stronger legal standing in
the event that a property or sign owner did not want to remove the sign
when the property was developed with another principal use. It was
suggested that the forms be sent to the owners by certified mail with
return receipt signatures kept on file at City Hall. In that way, the
City could have a document that the property owners received the form.
Basically, the discussion was centered around the existing billboard
signs, that is, signs of over 200 square feet, being allowed to remain
as they are in their present condition as the principal use of the property.
It was further discussed that at the time that the property upon which
the signs are located is further developed and another principal use or
building is developed on that property, that at that time the existing
sign would have to be removed. An ordinance amendment which stated the
above could help prevent non -conforming billboards from being perpetuated
indefinitely.
On a motion by John Bondhus, seconded by Dick Martie, all voted in favor
to suggest the following sign ordinance amendment be added to ordinance
Section 10-3-9:
a q LS
Planning Commission - 6/10/80
10-3-9: SIGNS
B. Permitted and Prohibited Signs:
2. Prohibited Signs:
(g). Advertising Signs, in excess of 200 sq. ft., except that
those signs which were in place on or before June 23, 1980
and which are the principal use of the lot of record as
of the above date, and which have an agreement on file with
the City on or before July 23, 1980, in the form so desig-
nated by the City Administrator which is signed by the
property owner and the advertising sign owner and notarized,
may continue as a non -conforming use until such time as the
lot of record above is developed, in which case, the non-
conforming advertising sign must be removed within 60 days
after written notice from the Building Official. (Excep-
tions - bus benches or signs which advertise non-profit
organizations).
The Planning Commission also voted to recommend that it be considered
that this be recorded as a deed restriction on those respective parcels
of property, if it is possible to do that.
The Planning Commission decided that at this meeting they would deal only
with billboards or, that is, signs of over 200 sq. ft., and that signs that
do not conform to the present ordinance would be dealt with after gathering
more information at the next regular Planning Commission meeting, and that,
if necessary, they would be willing to hold a special meeting to discuss
further information.
3. Public Hearinq - Prnposed Ordinance Amendment to Allow a Day Care Facility_
within an R-2 zone as a conditional use.
The present Monticello Zoning Ordinance allows a day care home with up
to five children as a permitted use in an R-1 zone, and allows the same
as a permitted use in an R-3 zone, with a day care facility with more
than five children as a conditional use in an R-3 zone. It was a staff
recommendation that the Planning Commission and Council consider amending
the present ordinance to allow a day care facility unit with more than
five children in an R-2 zone as a conditional use, provided that It meets
all the conditional use criteria as are required in an R-3 zone, as is
discussed in Section 10-8-4-0.
If this ordinance amendment were passed, it would then allow the ABC
Day Care Center to reestablish themselves from the Oakwood School to
the Baptist Church Building. At a recent Planning Commission meeting,
it was recommended to the City Council that the ABC Day Care Center be
allowed to move their facility into the old Baptist Church building, which
is zoned R-2, and that request was approved by the City Council as it was
recommended t0 them.
_J
-2-
C
Planning Connission - 6/10/80
Hearing no objections, on a motion by Dick Martie and seconded by Ed
Schaffer, all voted in favor to recommend a zoning ordinance amendment
to allow a Day Care Center with more than five children as a conditional
use in an R-2 zone.
4. Public Hearing - Ordinance Amendment to Allow Duplexes in an R-2 Zone
to be O:vned by Two Separate Individuals.
Upon a staff request, John Uban of Howard Dahlgren Associates, wrote a
memorandum to Gary Wieber, which outlined how our Planner feels that
the present ordinance could be interpreted to allow a duplex in an R-2
Zone which could be owned by two individual owners.
Mr. Uban stated in his letter "we feel that the zoning ordinance as
written should allow the City to approve the division of lots containing
multiple unit structures, in order that the individual housing units could
be sold. The total structure containing the units would then be subject
to the zoning ordinance requirements. In effect then, the units would be
built to and meet at one or more lot lines without the typical setbacks."
Mr. Uban went on to state that if the City desires to more clearly address
the issue of dividing lots of multiple unit buildings, that possibly the
City should consider a suggested new language be added into a new provision
Subsection E to Section 10-3-3.
On a motion by Ed Schaffer, seconded by John Bondhus, all voted in favor
to recommend a new subsection E, which states the following:
Lots of multiple housing unit structures may be divided for the
purpose of condominium ownership provided that the principal structure
containing the housing units shall meet the setback distances of the
applicable zoning district. in addition, each cunduminium unit shall
have the minimum lot area for the type of housing unit and usable open
space as specified in the area and building size regulations of this
ordinance. Such lot areas may be controlled by individual or joint
ownership.
5. Public Hearinq - Subdivision, Rezoning and Conditional Use Requests -
Quintin Lanners.
At the beginning of the meeting, Mr. Quintin Lanners withdrew his request
for a conditional use so this item dealt only with subdivision and rezoning.
-3-
1.11q..5
Planning Commission - 6/10/80
This public hearing item dealt with two topics - Item A - a subdivision J
request; and Item B - rezoning requests.
Mr. Quintin Lanners is proposing to subdivide the present Don Christopher
property, located directly west of Balboul Estates, into nine lots- Of
these nine lots, his request is to rezone Lot 1 to R-3 and Lots 2 thru 9
to R-2. His request for rezoning lots 2 thru 9 would be based on his
desire to build duplexes on each of the lots which would be individually
owned by the people who reside within the unit, rather than to have them
owned by one owner and have rental units. These duplex units would be
the same as those which were recommended for approval at the last Planning
Commission meeting for another lot owned by Mr. Lanners in another area of
Monticello, and also would be done at the recommendation of our Ci ty Planner.
The square footage of Lots 2 thru 9 range in size from 10,175 square feet,
which meets the minimum lot size required in an R-2 zone, to 29,100 square
feet, which is approximately three times the size of the minimum lot size
allowed in an R-2 zone.
At the time of the meeting, a comment back from Howard Dahlgren Associates
was to recommend this subdivision and rezoning request because of the
reasonable transition.
Mr. John Badalich, of OSM, at the time of the meeting had not submitted
a comment, however, his comments should be forthcoming before the next
City Council meeting. 1
On a motion by Ed Schaffer and a second by John Bondhus, it was unanimously J
approved to recommend approval of the subdivision request and to recommend
approval of the rezoning requests, as regiested.
6. Review of the Home Occupations Ordinance.
At a previous Planning Commission Meeting, the Planning Commission dis-
cussed the possibility of changing the definition of a home occupation
to include more items, and also to make all home occupations conditional
uses rather than some be conditional uses and others he permitted uses.
On a motion by Dick l4artie and second by John Bondhus, all voted in favor
to advertise for a public hearing at which it would be discussed to change
the home occupations ordinance to include all the uses as conditional uses.
7. Discussion of Lawful, Non-Confominn Uses within Certain 2oninq Districts.
Recently, there have been several complaints come in to City Hall about
people who were grandfathered in with their businesses at the time the
zoning was made to the entire City. One of those items which is receiving
a lot of attention at this time is trucking firms who have parkin ej spaces
at their residences. Apparently, those people who own trucks which are
larger than allowed in residential zones are parking those vehicles in the
residential zones and it is causing concern to the surrounding and abutting
neighbors . After considerable discussion among the Planning Commission
- 4 -
C
Planning Commission - 6/10/80
members, it was unanimously decided to recommend better law enforcement
in those areas.
8. Discussion of a Letter from the Department of Interior on the Monticello
island.
Approximately four years ago, Howard Dahlgren Associates sent a letter
to the Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, regarding a
question about the use of Monticello Island, which is located just below
the Highway 25 Bridge. At this time, the Bureau of Land Management is
in the process of determining land use planning, and would like to know
if the City has any plans for using the island. At one time it was
discussed that possibly a small bridge could be built from Bridge Park
to the island, and it could be used as a park annex, or a wilderness
addition to the existing bridge park.
On a motion by Ed Schaffer and seconded by Dick Martie, a unanimous
decision was voted to recommend no development of the island - to leave
it as it is.
9. A Variance Request for a ,Business Development to Not Have Landscapinq and
Parkinq Requirements Met.
Bob Peterson, of Scott's, Inc. of Grand Forks, N.D., was present to make
a request that he be able to continue to operate his brokerage firm from
behind the Monticello Ford building, yet still on the Monticello Ford
property, with a few variances that would be necessary. They are as
follows:
A. A second principal use on a particular lot.
B. No landscaping requirements.
C. No hardsurfacing requirements.
His request was based on the operation of his business only being from
July 28 through October 20; however, those dates can vary from 10 days
either way. At the present time, they feel they cannot justify a per-
manent building of their own because of the limited time spent in
Monticello during that short shipping season.
They feel that the facility they now have is able to handle their needs,
which are:
A. Easy access on and off the highway.
B. Room for one to eight semi trucks at any one time, which stay from
15 minutes to one hour, or possibly longer.
-5-
�
Planning Commission - 6/10/80
In Mr. Peterson's request, he is asking that they be allowed a permanent
variance from those three items which were listed.
On a motion by Dick Martie and seconded by Ed Schaffer, it was unanimously
approved to recommend that the three variance requests from Scott's be
granted on a one year basis with notation be made that they be able to
come in at the end of each one year period and request renewal of those
va riances .
10. A Variance Request for a Setback for a Pylon Siqn - Jim Maus.
Jim Maus was present at the Planning Commission meeting and requested
that he be allowed to put a new pylon sign on the present Stor-A-Way
property and be allowed to erect that sign as close as possible to the
property line. Monticello's present ordinance requires that Pylon signs
use the same setbacks as a building unless they are granted a variance
to do so. In the past, all pylon sign setback requests have been
granted as requested, and that in mind, on a motion by Ed Schaffer
and second by John Bondhus, it was a unanimous vote to recommend
granting a variance to allow the pylon sign to be erected as close
as possible to the property line on the cast side of the Stor-A-Way
property without any overhang into the right-of-way.
Meeting Adjourned.
Loren D. Klein'
Zoning Administrator
LDK/ns
F
I
I
HOWARD 6ARLGREN ASSOCIATES
..comon.,�o
CONSULTING PL'A NNEAS
O N E G Q O V C L O TE—CE
M-NEAPOLiS, MINNESOTA 55403
O.t•J�T-1lJO
MEMORANDUM
DATE: 19 June 1980
TO: Monticello City Council
FROM: Robert Ryan
RE: Suggested Deletion from the Proposed Sign Ordinance Amendment
The Planning Commission at their 10 June 1980 meeting reconrnended an
amendment to the Sign Ordinance which would allow existing advertising
signs (billboards) in excess of 200 square feet to remain as the
principal use of a lot until such time as the lot is developed. The
Ordinance as originally written prohibited advertising signs and
allowed a five year amortization period.
The original clause relating to advertising signs, Section 10-3-9 (B)
2 W. also contained the clause "(Exceptions: Bus benches or signs
which advertise non-profit organizations)". This exception clause was
also included in the proposed amendment.
Since the Planning Commission meeting, we have reviewed these
exceptions (that is, not including bus benches and non-profit
organizations) further with the City Staff. Based on this discussion
we would recommend that the exception clause be deleted from the Sign
Ordinance Amendment. The exception clause was included in the
amendment simply because it was in the original version. In addition,
the City does not have any bus benches and existing signs advertising
non-profit organizations would be allowed to remain as the principal
use under the proposed amendment. Therefore, the exception clause is
not necessary and should be deleted.
HOWARD DAHLOREN ASSOCIATES
CON SULTI NO P L ZN N I..
O N C G n o I C LAND , C — C C
.+.„NC.PoL.5, —NCsof, 554o3
nye err eses
MFMORA14DUM
DATE: 29 May 1980
TO: Monticello City Council and Planning Commission
FROM: C. John Man
RE: Sign Ordinance Amendments Allowing Existing Billboards to
Remain as a Non -Conforming Use
Based on our discussion at the 19 May 1980 Planning Commission meeting,
we have prepared an additional alternative method for wiending, the Sian
Ordinance which is presented following for consideration in addition to
those discussed in our memo dated 20 May 1980. Basically, the proposal
as described in this memo, would allow existing billboards to remain as
non-confonninq uses until such time as the lot upon which the sign is
located is subdivided , developed, or sold.
The proposed amendment would allow property owners and sign companies
the opportunity to continue to use their existinq billlnarde until such
time as they proposed to use the land more intensively. This amendment
should nlso help prevent non -conforming billboards from beinq perpetuated
indefinitely.
The proposed Amendment is tte,l to the fact that the billboard is the
principal vise. of the lot of record. Ilecauso of thin fact, we have Also
looked at file oxisting definitinns to sec if they are reasonably clone
and accurate with respect to the proposed revision. it npponrn that
the existing definitions are adequate to prevent undue rnnfuninn in
interpre_tinq the proMned revininn. The Applicable, definitions Are
shown below:
Structure. Anything which is built, constructed, of erected;
nn edifico or bui lding of any kinds or any piece rd work
artifiCally built up and/or eomp.ine,l of pArts jni11.1 togathet
in some definit.e manner whether t.empornry or pennnnent in
character,
Advertininq Sion. A 1,111board, pouter pnnal honed. I,ainte.l
bulletin honrd, o r athor communicative device which is usod
to Advertise prnductn, goodn, And/or services which are not
exclusively related to the premine on which the sign in
locn tad.
I'
L
Y
MEMORANDUM
RE: Sign ordinance Amendments Page Tuo
1
Principal Use. The main use of land or buildings as distinguished
from subordinate or accessory uses. A "principal use" may be
either permitted or conditional.
Accessory Building or Use. A subordinate building or use
which is located on the same lot on which the main building or
use is situated and which is reasonably necessary and incidental
to the conduct of the primary use of such building or main use.
Following then, is the proposed revision to the advertising signs
section under Prohibited Signs in section 10-3-9 of the Zonino Ordinance.
This relatively minor revision would handle billboards in the manner
discussed at the 19 May meeting.
Also attached is a draft copy of an agreement form between the City of
Monticello and the property and advertising sign owners which the City
could use. This form should give the City a stronger legal standing in
the event that a property or sign owner did not want to remove the sign
when the property was sold, subdivided, or developed for another principal
u"— We would suggest that the forms be sent to the owners by certified
mail with return receipt signatures kept on file at City Ilall. in this
way the City would have documentation that the property owners received
the form. Please feel free to contact us if you desire any additional
clarification of these procedures.
l «-
MEMORANDUM
RE: Sign Ordinance Amendments Page Three
10-3-9 SIGNS
(B) PERMITTED AND PROHIBITED SIGNS
2. Prohibited Signe
g. Advertising signs, except that those signs which were
in place on or before • and which
are the principal use of the lot of record as of the
above date and which have an agreement on file with the
City on or before •• in the form
so designated by the City Administrator which is signed
by the property owner and tho advertising sign owner
and notarized may continue as a non -conforming use
until such time as the lot of record above is
subdivided, developed, or the ownership changes, in
which case the non -conforming advertising sign must be
removed within ten (10) days after written notice from
the Building Inspector. (Exceptions: Bus benches or
signs which advertise non-profit organizations.)
* There are two options for an effective date. one option would be
to use the date that thin amendment is passed. This would Allow
alI "xiatin9 hll ihnarda tc- be rendfathcrcd" is ..rdcr thilz
provision. The other option would be to use the date of the earlier
ban on billboards which would then not allow those billboards which
were put up on a temporary permit since that time.
•• we would suggest allowing thirty (30) days from the time of passage
and official notification of the owners for them to nubmit their
signed agreement.
1
MEMORANDUM
RE: Sign Ordinance Amendments Page Four
-DRAFT-
ADVERTISING SIGN AGREEMENT
In accordance with the provisions of Section 10-3-9 (D) 2 (g) of the
City Code of Monticello, Minnesota as amended on
we, the owner(s) of the following described property and the advertising
sign located thereon have received a copy of the provisions of this
Section which read as follows:
10-3-9 SIGNS
(B) PERMITTED AND PROHIBITED SIGNS
2. Prohibited Siqns
g. Advertising signs, except that those signs which
were in place on or before and
which are the principal use of the lot of record
as of the above date and which have An agreement
on file with the City on or before
in the form no desionated by the City J
Administrator which is nigned by the property
owner and the Advertising sign owner and
notarized, may cnntinue no a non-conforminq une
until such time ns the lot of record Above is
subdivided, develo),ecl, or the ownership changes,
in which cane tho non -conforming AdvorLising sign
must be removed within Len (10) days After
written notice from the Ruilcling Inspector.
(Exceptions: Dun benches nr signn which advertise
non-profit organizations.)
we further certify that we have rend the Above. provisions And understand
Lhn Implications with respect to advertininq nignn IOCALMl nn the
followinq dencribed property:
Lcgal Description:
J
MEMORANDUM
RE: Sign Ordinance Amendments Page Five
Property Owner of Record
and Address:
Signature:
Advertising Sign Owner
and Address:
Signature:
Witnessed by Notary Public:
Received on or bofore:
ny:
C.
SEAL
City Administrator
l
I
I ntarted the ADC Day Care Center. approximately 2 years ago.
The main problem in starting the day care center was in finding
a suatabie facility and location. The Oakwood school gym met
these needs. Here I visa in compliance with all the state's
requirements.
In these 2 years we have provided child care services on a
dailey basis for working parents and also a Drop -In service
for children who need the service on an irregular basis.
During, this length of time we have provided service for at
least 500 children of this community.
At this time, we provide care for 20 Pro-Schoolers, 7 Toddlers,
4 Infants, and 7 School Age Children, for a total of 38 children
on a dail.ey basis. Also, we provide cure for at least 15 children
on a drop-in basis, per week.
For the last year we have been concerned about a permanent location
for the da;; care :n ardcr to hccp cpc.at:....:1. 11-4 .
this time we have been actively sceking another quiteble facility.
�.,a came across the lot Baptist Church a few months ago. At that
time Brad Larson was considering the site for townhouaes and
converting the prooent church building into a duplex.
Apparently, the way the situation now stands is that the 1st
Baptist church is keeping the land, and will be building a now
church facility on this land. At one point, the prosont church
building was considered to be converted into a parsonaCte, but
this is no longer the case.
3 ..
I
The floor plans of the present church building are perfect
for our requirements for a day care facility. The building
meets almost all of the state requirements , which are considerable.
The location is another advantage, being centraly located in town,
and next to the Pinewood school because many of our children
attend school there.
This building is the only place we have been able to find which
would meet the needs of the ABC DAY CARE CLN TER. Our only other
alternative would be to close our program, which we would hate
to see happen. tie feel that there is a treat need for our type
of program in this community, which has been proven in the last
2 years.
This year some of our children went to the pre-school screening
for entering kindergarten, and we were told that they seemed more
advanced and well prepared due to the fact that they had experienced
a pre-achool pror,.ram which helps to roody them for kindergurten.
Our stuff must meet qualifications Oct forth by the Dept. of Public
'7elfaro. Also, when the staff come tb the day care, their whole
day is geared to meeting the needs of these children. There are
no other distractions for them which might arise in u home situation
such as household chores, running errands etc. Therefore, I Leal
this works to tho childo advantage as they know taht their needs of
instruction, discipline, and love are being mot.
The ASC DAy CARE CE14TER employs 9 women from our comminity, plus
1 man part-time who comes to us through thu Green Thumb Senior
Citinon Program. Therefore, I am petitioning you to approve the
noccasury Conditional Use Permit in order that we may purchase
the lot Baptist Church for the ASC Day Ca Center. t
L
L
HOWARD DAHLGREN ASSOCIATES
"Co""""
CONSULTING PLANNER 5
ONC O A O v C L w N D T C A A 1 C C
1-11E POL-5. 11NNE50TA 55-0
MEMORANDUM
DATE: 22 May 1980
TO: Gary wicber, City Administrator
City of Monticello
FROM: C. John Uban
RE: Dividing of Lots Containing More Than One Dwelling Unit for
Purposes of Ownership
Per your request, we have reviewed the Zoning Ordinance with respect to
the above. The Ordinance as written implies that permitted uses and
also conditional uses in the residential zones may be sold for condominiums
provided they moot the lot area par unit requirements contained in
Section 10-3-4-(8). The Zoning Ordinance requirements for the main
structure would, of course, remain the same whether the units were owned
by one party and rented or sold to individuals as condominiums.
We feel that the Zoning Ordinance as written would allow the City to
approve the division of Iota containing multiple unit structures in order
LhaL LLu indiviJual 19C—bluy u),i La could uu auld. She Lutdl structure
containing the units would then be subject to the Zoning Ordinance
requirements. In effect then, the units would be built to and moot at
one or more lot lines without the typical setbacks.
However, if the City desires to mote clearly address the issue of dividing
lots of multi -unit buildings for the purpose of selling individual units,
we would suggest adding some clarifying language to the Ordinance. A
clause could he added to Section 10-3-3- which would allow condominium
units to have common walls, that is to be built at what is sometimes
called a zero lot line, provided the total structure maeto the setback
requirements and that oneh unit had the lot area required. Such language
could be added in a new provision (L•') to Section 10-3-3- as follows:
i
(E) lots of multiple housing unit Structures may be 1 6.
divided for the purpose of condominium ownership
provided that the principal Structure containing _ �r4•ti' `
the housing units shall meet thMetback diatances }1
of tho applicable zoning district. In addition,
MEMORANDUM
RE: Dividing of Lots Containing More Than One 22 May 1980
Dwelling Unit Page Two
each condominium unit shall have the minimum lot
area for the type of housing unit and usable open
space as specified in the Area and Building Size
Regulations of this Ordinance. Such lot areas may
be controlled by an individual or joint ownership.
Please give us a call if you need any additional clarification.
RR
e
SC®T Y9S Inc.
P.O. Box 728 / Grand Forks, ND 58201 / Phone (701) 775'2577
May 31, 1980
City of Monticello
P. 0. Box 777
Monticello, Minnesota 55362
ATTN: Cary Wieber
Oenr Sirs:
This letter is to make application for a conditional variance permit
for an indeterminate length of time. This permit will enable Scott's Inc.
to operate from a mobile office located on the Southwest corner of 1-94
and Highway 25, to the back side of the Ford Garage. Refer to enclosed
diagram.
Scott's Inc. is a truck brokerage_ business serving as a coordinator
between a grower of potatoes and the buyer of his product.
The potato crop grown in this area is npproxit:iately 7,000 acres, making
about 6,000 truck loads. Of this 6,000 loads only nhout 5 percent or les,:
stay in the AtArp of Minnecota. Thu6e potatoes are sold as far away ns:
Boston, Miami, Los Angeles, New Orleans and any point in between.
Most of this crop is moved in approximately 90 dnyn because there are
only 3 or 4 farmers that have storage facilities enabling them to ship
some of their product during the winter months. less than 2 percent of
this crop to moved by the railroad, thus making a huge demand for truck
transportation.
If the former nells a load of potatoes to a receiver in New York City,
this sale would depend on his being able to deliver his product. Since the
former has neither the time nor the basic knowledge of where to find n
truck for this fob, our service becomes vital to his survival. Not only
does Ire need a truck, but usually the truck is needed in 1 to 2 hours
from the timo of sale. Because of no storage facilities the potatoes go
directly from the harvester into a truck. if no truck is available
quickly it euuld cause a hardship for the grower because of un-
productive labor. This crop must be moved before the fall freeze, and
time is of great importance. Thus the more strategically located we are
the better we can serve the farmers needs. With the increased operating
costa of a truck per mile, a central location gives us the opportunity to
have an adequate supply of equipment available at all times.
"Your Truck Broker Since 1951 " S
The sale of this product may also, and quite often is done by a buyer or
broker in another state quite a distance from Minnesota. Thus making our
location even more important since all these sales are made only if trans-
portation is available.
If the product can't be transported quickly, efficiently and with a
great deal of regularity the buyers will buy the product from other areas,
such as Alabama, Texas, Colorado, Michigan or Wisconsin who are shipping
the same product at the same time.
What the general public is not aware of is that this type of product
is not hauled by the Common Carrier or freight company. It is transported
by the Independent owner -operator. The knowled Ec of how and where to find
this person can only come from years of experience. Our company has been
in this line of business since 1952, in Grand Forks, North Dakota, and
serving your area since July, 1964. We have been at our present location
since 1972, and the facility we are presently using is a 45 foot mobile
unit built in 1972 to our specifications for an office.
At the present time we have not been able to rent a permanent facility
in Monticello that can facilitate our needs: easy access on and off the
highway, room for from 1 to 8 trucks at a time, from 15 minutes to 1 hour.
At this time we cannot justify a permanent building of our own because of
the limited time spent in Monticello for this short shipping -
Gu, uffice presently being operated from July 28th through October 20th.
These dates can vary ten days either way.
Your immediate consideration for approval of this application is
greatly appreciated.
^SinccrcI
SCb t[' 9 Inc.
Robert Pederson, V. Pres.
Enc.
RP:kj
V
A
C
M
(L-
C
SUMER RECREATION COSTS - 1980
Salaries:
T-Ball/Baseball/Softball/Basketball
$3,577.50
Tennis
1,652.50
Pottery
210.00
Wrestling/Gymnastics
280.00
Swimming -(Assistant Community Ed -
Director primarily responsible
for instructing and coordinating
pool activities
2,200.00
Swimming - Lifeguards (150 hre
open swim)
1,900.00
Swimming - Red Croce Lessons
900.00
Salariee - Totals
$10,720
Supplies b Equipment:
Baseballs, Softballe, Bate, Helmets,
Catcher guar, T -Ball stand. Tannic
Balls. Pottery supplies 500.00
Supplies 6 Equipment - Total $ 500
Special Activities in Parki
Story Talora (2 performances) 240.00
Special Activities - Total S 240
GRAND TOTAL $11,460
The above total does not reflect the overhead costs involved
in maintaing an office and salaries for the Community Education
Director, and Secretary. It also does not reflect the overhead
for maintaining the swimming pool in term expense for chemicals,
aupplios and custodial solarioe.
Y
G
T
RECREATION EXPENSES DURING THE YEAR
Salaries:
Pool - Lifeguards $3,100
Red Cross Instruction 200
Open Gym 300
Other programs ouch as skiing, special
tripe, basketball, volleyball leagues
etc. pay for the moot part the direct
coat of having the program.
Administration - (Base on 20% of Director,
Aso't Director and Secretary time is
spent on Recreational Activities)
20Z of above salaries 8.270
Salaries - Total $11,870
General Supplies:
Supplies - (201 on Recreation) IGO
General Supplies - Total 100
Special Evente:
Events - (20%) 440
Special Events - Total 440
Transportation:
Transportation - (202) 730
Transportation - Total 730
GRAND TOTAL $13,140
Other items in the Community Education budget ouch as tolophonu
postage, promotion. etc. aro not reflected above. Also, sxpanso for
custodial salaries and supplies aro not reflected above.
l�
2) Levy of $18,000
Levy vithout Bonds - $486,025
Levy vith Bonds - $915,431
Kill Rate vith Bonds - 22.775
Tax Increase on Homes with the folloving Valuations.
Tax
Residential Valuation - Homestead Assessed Valuation Increases
i
$30,000 $ 6,480.00
$2.90
$40,000 $ 9,480.00
$4.25
1 ��
$50,000 $12,480.00
$5.59
3.6 3
3) Levy of $24,000
Levy vithout Bonds - 492,025
Levy with Bonds - $921,431
Kill Rate vith Bonds - 22.924
Ta: Increase on Homes vith the folloving Valuations
Tax
Residential Valuation - Homestead Assaased Valuation Increases
�' f Y
830,000 $ 6,480.00
83.87
$40,000 $ 9,480.00
85.66
��v3
850,000 012,480.00
$7.45
Pl®aso Now The above figures do not include state paid
35j77 Uomeatoad Credit - 502 up to $550 maximum
sso *� 23Z `i`'jQ9v I
Cost Analysis for Increasing City Contributions
for Community Education and'Recreation'Pro$ram
J
1980-81
Background Information:
Citv of Monticello
Assessed Vaivation 40,194,876
1) Levy of $12.000.00
i
Levy without Bonds - 0480,025
Levy with Bonds - $909,431
Mill Rate with Bonds - 22.626
Tax increase on homes with the following valuations.
Ta:
Residential Valuation - Homestead Assessed Valuation Increases
$30,000 $ 6,480.00 $1.94 .97
$40,000 0 9,480.00 $2.84 1•`�''
$50,000 012,480.00 $3.73 �.o �-
aI
1979-80
Currant Contribution
3,500
Mill Rate without Contribution
22.240
Texas paid by individuals with H.omea of the
following Valuation
Residential Valuation
- Homestead Assessed Valuation Taxes
uO/ia C,
$30,000
$ 6,480.00
$ .56
e
040,000
$ 9,480.00
$ .82
y1
$50,000
812.480.00
61.08
Sy
1) Levy of $12.000.00
i
Levy without Bonds - 0480,025
Levy with Bonds - $909,431
Mill Rate with Bonds - 22.626
Tax increase on homes with the following valuations.
Ta:
Residential Valuation - Homestead Assessed Valuation Increases
$30,000 $ 6,480.00 $1.94 .97
$40,000 0 9,480.00 $2.84 1•`�''
$50,000 012,480.00 $3.73 �.o �-
aI
,�
MI NUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
June 9 , 1980 - 7:30 P . M.
Members Present: Arve Grimsmo, Dan Blonigen, Fran Faie, Ken Maus, Phil White.
Members Absent: None
Citizens Comments:
Diane Jacobson, property owner in Anders Wilhelm Estates, representing
herself and other property owners in the area, complained to the Council
about the drainage problems they are experiencing in their rear yards on
the east side of Anders Wilhelm Estates. Mrs. Jacobson indicated that
after periods of rainfall, ponding occurs in numerous rear yards and the
water does not drain as it should from the property.
Ralph Munsterteiger, speaking for the developers of the project, agreed
with the property owners determination that the drainage is a problem in
the area, but indicated that the developers and builders are willing to do
the work to solve the problem. Mr. Munsterteiger indicated that elevations
were takcri of the area, and felt that an approximate 10" drainage ditch
could be constructed on the back of the property in question to solve the
drainage problems in the future. He indicated that this drainage swail
could either be cunstructed on the rear yards of the affected property
owners running in a southerly direction, or the swail could be constructed
on a 12' area of the City parkland owned directly behind the property .
After a lengthy discussion with the Council and the property owners, it was
the consensus of all parties that a drainage swail be constructed by the
developer on the 12' casement that should be at the back of each property
owners lot for drainage purposes.
In regards to the easement that should be recorded as Part of the development
plat, motion was made by Ken Maus, seconded by Phil White aid unanimously
carried to have the City consultant the City Attorney to get a legal
opinion as to whether the easement actually exists and whether the City
can authorize work to be done in this area. It was noted that should the
drainage swail be developed, the City Engineer will be supervising and
inspecting the proposed drainage swail.
1. Consideration of Request for Banner, Sign, Closing of a Portion of a Street
and Restriction on Parklmi — Church of St. Henry.
A representative of the St. Henry's Church Fall Festival Committee requested
that the City grant permission for the following items for their Fall
Festival:
1
17
Council Minutes - 6/9/80
A. Banner across 4th Street.
B. Temporary sign.
C. Closing of one -block section of 4th Street between Maple Street
and Minnesota Street.
D. Restrict parking on Minnesota Street from 4th Street to Railroad tracks.
E. Construction of temporary signs relative to parking close to the
intersection.
It was noted that the banner, if approved, would be erected on Saturday,
September 13th and would be taken down Sunday evening after the close of
the event on September 21, 1980. The closing of the one -block long sec-
tion of 4th Street in front of the Church would occur only during the
hours of the Festival itself to eliminate any traffic hazards in the
area.
Motion was made by Phil White, seconded by Fran Fair and unanimously
carried to approve the five requests of the Fall Festival Committee for
the St. Henry's Church.
2. Consideration of Awarding Contracts for the Purchase of a Debarking
Machine and a Wood Splitter for the City's Shade Tree Disease Program. 11
Public Works Director, John Simola, reviewed with the Council the follow- J
ing bids that were received at 2:00 P.M.. June 9, 1980, for the purchase
of a log splitter and a debarking machine:
SPLITTER QUOTES
LS 500 20T SS 500 25T
Coast
to Coast
$4,047.49
$5,450.00
Energy
Shed, Brainerd
4,103.50
5,470.13
Energy
Shed, Fridley
4,100.00
5,600.00•
*Note:
Includes estimate
$100.00 freight and estimated
$50.00 battery.
DEBARKER BID
Road Machinery, Bloomington, MN. 512,575.00
Morbark Ind., inc., Winn. Michigan 14,461.25
Mr. Simola recommended that the low bid for the heavy-duty SS 500 25T
log splitter in the amount of $5,450 from Coast to Coast, and the
bid from Road Machinery Co. for the debarking machine in the atrount of
$12,575 be accepted. It was noted that half of the purchase price will
be reimbursed by the State as part of their aid program for Shade Tree
Disease program, and in addition, the City will be reimbursed by the State
for each hour these pieces of equipment are utilized by the City.
-2.
i
Council Minutes - 6/9/RO
Motion was made by Phil White, seconded by Ken Maus and unanimously carried
to award the contracts for purchasing the log splitter from Coast to Coast
in the amount of $5,450 and the debarker machine in the amount of $12,575
from Road Machinery.
3. Review of Matters Relative to Providing Library Services in Monticello
and the Oakwood Block.
As part of the discussion held on the City providing future library
services in Monticello, it was noted that the District Court in Buffalo
has now taken under advisement the petition submitted to them for
determination of whether the Worth Brasie Trust can be terminated.
If the Court rules in favor of termination of the Trust, the City will
then proceed with the purchase of the Oakwood School Block and also
be responsible for providing library services in Monticello. Assuming
the Court rules in favor of eliminating the Trust, the City will have
to decide as to whether to build a new library, and also decide other
issues in regards to the Oakwood School building such as remnval of
the present building and selling of the Oakwood Block property.
It was noted that should the City build a new library, the School District
has made available lots 9 8 10, Block 17, located just south of the Oakwood
Block, for the City to use as a future library site if they desire.
Councilmembers indicated that this property should be studied to see
whether a building of suitable size can be constructed on this property,
and as a result, a motion was made by Ken Maus, seconded by Dan Blonigen
and unanimously carried to have the Mayor and City Administrator find
six members from various committees such as the library, a representative
from the Crcat River Regional Library System, mPm he.r of the Friends of the
Library Committee, and other citizens to form a building committee whose
task would be to study the possible new library building in the two block
area in question. The Committee's assigned task would be to determine such
things as possible size of the building, whether the library should also
house the historical building, approximate cost of the building, etc.
The Mayor and the City Administrator will be finding six members for this
Committee by the next Council meeting.
Motion was also made by Ken Maus, seconded by Dan Dlonigen, to have the
City Administrator contact two architectural fines to make presentation
of credentials to the City Council in regards to a new library building.
4. Approval of 14inutes.
Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Phil White and unanimously carried
to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting held Tuesday, May 27, 1980.
Meeting adjourned.
kick Woli'si.eller, Asst. Administrator
- 3 - p
L
DARRELL L. WOLFF
empty Sh-;N
4
Honorable Mayor
City Council
Monticello, Minn. 55362
Gentlemen:
SH'ERIFF'S OFFICE
Court Hmse — Wright County
BUFFALO, MINNESOTA SS313
Taitpboee b82.1162
Non-Er.urpe.cy aw. No. 682.3900
8:00 a.m. - 4:20 p.m.
James F. Powers, Chief Deputy
24 Nour E..V.—V Toleph-
-_- Meao473.6673
MonMcsIW 2952533
-' Oelena 972.2924
Cakno 266fi454
June 12, 1980
Enclosed is the Sheriff's Law Enforcement report for the month of May, 1980.
576 hours of patrol service were contracted for during the period in which the
following activities were tallied:
I - Theft 5 criminal damage to property - pinball machines at Dino's Other World
broken into - money taken
1 - Theft of bicycle - recovered
2 - Criminal damage to property - all 8 tires on 2 vehicles slashed - under Investigation
1 - Theft of wallet
1 - Attempted burglary of Figs -It -Shop - cleared by arrest
1 - Forgery b fraud at Wright County State Bank - warrant issued for arrest of subject
Involved 6 case currently under investigation
1 - Burglary of residence - small amount of cash taken
1 - No pay customer at Dino's Other World
1 - Theft of 2 lawn mowers from storage shed - cleared by arrest of 2 juveniles
S property recovered
1 - Criminal damage to property - vandalism to monuments at River View Cemetery
1 - No pay customers at Perkins
1 - Unauthorized use of motor vehicle at Haglund's Bus Company - cleared by arrest
1 - Property damage - vehicle drove over lawn
2 - Simple assaults - cleared by arrest
2 - Thefts of bicycles
I - Burglary of Holker's Urive-In - cash 6 cigarettes taken - cleared by arrest 6
part of the items recovered
I - Theft of 2 bowling balls d bags 6 shoes from Joyners Lones
1 - Theft of prescription drugs from Snyder Drug
1 - Vandalism at Could Bros Chevrolet - window broken out of pickup
7 - Criminal damage to property - windows broken out at the Times Office, Wrignt County
State Bank. Independent Lumber, 3 residences 6 I vehicle
1 - Theft of gas from vehicle
I - Theft of plastering tools 6 ladder from residence_
J
SHER/FFT OFFICE
,A
Court Hous*— Wright Canty
BUFFALO, MINNESOTA 55313
Jame. F. Powers, Chief Deputy
Talaphau 611.1167
24 Hou, Emwpney Ta40o,rs
N—Emapmcy a- No. 68.3900
Metro 473-6673
a DARRELL L. WOLFF 8.00am.•4;30 p.m.
Mmticalb 2952533
County Shorlfl
Octane 9722924
Co=o 2863454
Sheriff's report for Monticello for May, 1980, continued:
1 - Shoplifting at Snyder Drug - cleared by arrest of 4 juveniles
1 - Property damage - subject put fist through wall at Roller Rink
- cleared by mediation
1 - Burglary - tool box 6 tools taken
1 - Theft of canoe from yard
1 - Theft of billfold from vehicle
1 - Arrest for possession of loaded firearm in vehicle
3 - Arrests for possession of beer by minors
1 - Arrest for procuring beer for minors
1 - Arrest for contributing to delinquency of a minor
1 - Arrest for bench warrant
9 - Traffic complaints
9 - Suspicious vehicles 6 persons
5 - Public nuisance 6 disturbances
3 - Medical aids
4 - Animal complaints
1 - Civil matter
2 - Prowler reports
,
3 - Alarms sounded - checked out o.k.
2 - Fires reported
♦ 2 - Harassing phone calls
1 - Child neglect - checked out
1 - Littering
6 - Domestics
1 - Attempted suicide
152 - Car d subject checks
55 - Citizen aids
70 - Motorists ua.r�u
21 - Accidents iro.estigated
8 _ n.--n .1 ,ora
b.t - Traffic tickets issued:
1 - Driving while intoxicated
7 - Speed
1 - Careless driving
4 - Reckless driving
2 - Erratic driving
5 - Stop sign 6 signal
3 - Open bottle
2 - Improper lane usage
5 - Driver license vlolation
48 - Illegal parking
1 - School Bus stop violation
Youwl 1•ruly,
Darrell iJOlff, Sh;riif
Billing: For the month of May. 19SU -- $ 6,378.66
ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEM
Consideration of Approval of Temporary On -Sale Malt Liquor License -Lion's
Club.
The Monticello Lion's Club is again requesting a temporary license
to sell 3.2 beer on the 4th of July as part of the Independence Day
cr.lehration.
This celebration takes place in the Bridge Park, and this is where
the beer would be sold. In addition to this location, the Lion's Club
is also asking that the license include the allowance of sale of 3.2 beer
at the Maus Foods parking lot on the 4th of July. This parking lot is the
location prior to the parade of various antique cars that are reviewed by
the public. The lion's felt that it would increase their beer sales if
3.2 beer were also available at this site.
It should be noted that during the past years that the Lion's Club
have been given a license, no incidents have occurred and they have
been very responsible in assuring that no minors were served with 3.2
bear.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval or denial of temporary 3.2
beer license.
C
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gary Wieber, City Administrator
FROM: Loren Klein, Zoning Administrator
DATE: June 23, 1980
SUBJECT: Proposed Monticello Siqn Ordinance Chanqe
On June 23, 1980, 1 met with Gary Pringle, the City Attorney,
regarding the proposed sign ordinance amendment regarding
signs of 200 square feet or more, as were dealt with at the
previously held Planning Commission meeting. The result
was a recommendation from Gary Pringle that we change some
of the language of the proposed Ordinance Amendment to more
clearly state what he felt the intentions of that ordinance
amendment were.
Ordinance Section 10-3-9 SiGNS: Subsection B - Permitted and
Prohibited Signs - Subsection (2) Prohibited Signs - (g):
Advertising signs of 200 square feet or more, in place
on or before June 23, 1980, and which are the principal
use of the lot of record as of the above date, and which
have an agreement on file with the City on or before
August 23, 1980, in the form su deel9noLed by the City
Administrator, which is signed by the property owners and
the advertising sign owners and all signatures notarized,
may continue as a non -conforming use until such time as
the lot of record above is developed or improved, in which
case, the non -conforming advertising sign must be removed
within 60 days after written notice from the Building Official.
LDK/ns
C
COUNCIL UPDATE
June 23, 1980 Meeting
Acquisition of Storm Water Ponding Area Under Chapter 429,
Minnesota Statutes, Local Improvement - Special Assessments.
A letter has been received in response to the City's request to the
State Auditor's Office dated February 4, 1980, relative to the
possible acquisition by the City of Monticello of a ponding area
on the West Side of Highway 25 and south of Sandberg South. It
is the opinion of the Office of the State Auditor that the City
of Monticello cannot expend monies for the acquisition of land for
storm water holding areas out of reserve funds and at a later date
assess the cost of the improvements, including the initial acquisi-
tion. Additionally, the State Auditor's Office feels that the
City of Monticello cannot hold a preliminary hearing prior to
acquisition and assess the improvement at a later point in time,
possibly five to ten years dependent upon development. The best
way to resolve this problem, according to the State Auditor's
Office, is to require the developer to dedicate such land areas
as necessary for holding, retention ponds, rather than for the City
to in fact subsidize the cost of the development of the property.
A copy of the letter from the State Auditor's Office is enclosed.
2. Library Committee.
For your information, Arve Grimsmo has appointed the following members
to a Library Committee:
Mdrye Bduer
Bud Schleif
Bud Schrupp
Loren Klein
Ken Maus
Caroline Ellison
At this point, all of the above members have accepted the appointment
with the exception of Marge Bauer, who is out of town, and Bud Schleif,
who 1 have been unable to reach at this point.
3. Termination of the Worth-Brasie Trust.
A ruling has been received by the District Court in Buffalo, Minnesota,
that terminates the trust created by Worth Brasie. As a result, all of
Irt the legal problems involved with the transfer of the library to the City
of Monticello have been formally resolved. As you might recall, the closing
date of this transaction was to be at the time all legal issues have been
resolved, or August 31, 1980, whichever occurred later. it would appear
Council Update
June 23, 1980
f/ Page R2
now that the School District may have to lease for a period of time
offices and space from the City of Monticello for an additional two
or three months as provided in the purchase agreement.
GN/ns
�OIT p,t
`V
A,wv. 11. CAMs K
S—m Am .
June 3. 1980
T
STATE OF MINNI'.tit)'rA
urr•ICI: OF Tali S•I'A'fr: AUufrun
SAINT PAUL 55155
Mr. Gary Wieber
City Administrator
City of Monticello
250 E. Broadway
Monticello, Minnesota 55362
2842551
RE: Acquisition of Storn Water Ponding Area Under
Chapter 429, Minnesota Statutes, Local Improvements,
Special Assessments
Dear Gary:•'�-
In response to your May 15, 1980 letter, the answer to your question,
"Can the City of Monticello expend monies for the acquisition of land
for stnrm water holding areas out of reserve funds and at a later date
assess the cost of improvemLnts, including the initial acquisition,
by going through the proper procedures, including the necessary hearings
under Chapter 429?", appears to be no. Of particular concern is the
proposed plan would tie up, possibly five to ten years reserve funds
obtained through general taxation. We question whether a City should
Purchase property for which it has nu present need. in addition, we feel
that the intent and spirit of Chapter 475, which controls public indebtedness,
requires that if debt were issued by the City for any nortion of the
acquisition, an election is required.
The principal issues presented by special assessment matters concern
(a) validity, i.p, whpthnr an imprnvemont, r,nnctitutPc an aggP—;AhlP
special "benefit" or a general improvement requiring uniform tax support:
(b) the method of apportioning improvements among benefited parcels:
and (c) the legality of assessment procedures, i.e. their conformity with
constitutional or statutory mandates. Your other question, "Is it possible
under Chapter 429 to hold the preliminary hearing and then assess the cost
at a later point in time - possibly five to ten years - and still live
within the intent and letter of the law as spelled out in 429", appears
to be addressed to this latter point. The answer to the question you pose
is that it appears that the proposed action would at least violate the
intent of Chapter 429.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
-<>-a
Mr. Cary Wieber
June 3, 1980
Page 2.
We think the key to questions such as yours, as with any qrowinq community.
lies with good land use planning. in most cases a City should not have to
own a ponding area. As a proposed alternative for the City of Monticello
to consider is the power nranted under Minn. Stat. Sec. 462.358, Subd. 2.,
which provides in part:
The subdivision regulations may require that in anprooriate nlots
of subdivisions to be developed for residential, commercial,
industrial or other uses, or as nlanned develonment which includes
residential, commercial and industrial uses, or any combination
thereof, that a reasonable nortion of each nronosed subdivision
be dedicated to the public for nublic use as oarks, nla 'vorounds,
public open space, or storm water holdinn areas or ponds, or that
the subdivider contribute an eauivalent amount in cash based on
the fair market value of the undeveloped land, as defined by the
regulations, provided that cash payments received under such
regulations shall be placed in a snecial fund by the municipality
and used only for the acquisition of land for narks, playorounds,
nublic open space and storm water holding areas or nonds, develonment
of existing nark and playground sites, nublic open space and storm
water holdinq areas or ponds, and debt retirement in connection
with land previously acquired for such public nurnoses.
Thus the Legislature authorizes municipalities to require a develooer to
install improvements which may be said to benefit neculiarly the land being
develoned. As to such improvements, it may he noted that if they were made
by the munieioality itself, it would he inconsistent with our general
statutory thesis to recover the cost by special assessment upon the
properties being benefited. Hence the dollar burden upon the oronerty is
not significantly different whether the developer finances the imnrovement
or it is paid for by the ultimate oronerty owner after it is installed
by the muni eioality.
We do not know what Monticello's canabilities for nlanninn under the orovisions
of Cheuter 462 are, but would recommend tnat the City of Monticello contact
their Penional Develonment Commission and obtain guidance through that office.
The main problem with subdivision regulations or exactions is a nractical one.
Subdivisions burdened by the requirements sometimes cannot compete effectively
in the same market with subdivisions havinn facilities orovided by local
government. However, as was noted above, the cost to the benefited oronerty
under either method is the same.
i hone the foregoing has been of assistance.
Sincerely,
THOMAS N. 111L6ERTsnN
Legal Counsel z�
lit