City Council Agenda Packet 05-14-1990AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Monday, May 14, 1990 - 7:00 p.m.
Mayor: Ken Maus
Council Members: Fran Fair, Shirley Anderson, Warren Smith, Dan
Blonigen
1. Call to order.
2. Approval of minutes of the special meeting held January 29,
1990, and the regular meeting held April 23, 1990.
3. Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints.
4. Consideration of appeal on a public nuisance order.
Applicant, Luke Torell.
5. Consideration of a conditional use request to allow a daycare
(headstart program) in an R-2 (single and two family
residential) zone. Applicant, First Baptist Church/Wright
County Community Action Headstart Program.
6. Consideration of conditional use permit which would allow
retail commerciai activity in a PZM zone. Applicant, JKMV
Partnership/21st Century Builders.
7. Consideration of approval of preliminary and final plat of
Kirkman Addition (K -Mart). Applicant, The Lincoln Companies.
8. Consideration of rezoning request of land south of realigned
7th Street right-of-way from PZM (performance zone mixed) to
B-3 (highway business) zoning. Applicant, The Lincoln
Companies.
9. Consideration of resolutions authorizing the sale of bonds for
Tax increment District 1-1 (7th Street Project) and refunding
of 1983 C.O. Bond along with Meadows 2nd Addition phase II
Improvement.
10. Consideration of adopting ordinance amendment which would
allow operation of a prototype furnace using rubber products
as fuel in an 1-1 zone.
II. Consideration of conditional use permit which would allow
operation of a prototype furnace using rubber products as
fuel.
12. Consideration of a resolution awarding bids for Project 90-03,
street and utility improvements for the Meadows 2nd Addition,
phase 1I.
ry
2
City Council Agenda
May 14, 1990
Page 2
13. Consideration of accepting appraisal for park dedication
purposes --West Prairie Partners plat.
14. Consideration of a zoning amendment to amend the entire
sections of Chapter 18, Flood Plain Management Ordinance.
Applicant, City of Monticello.
15. Consideration of zoning ordinance amendment reducing
"convenience food" parking requirement. Applicant, Shingobee
Builders.
16. Consideration of ordinance amendment deleting surety bond
requirements for on -sale liquor license applicants.
17. Consideration of granting annual approval for municipal
licenses.
18. Consideration of sale of excess right-of-way at the
intersection of service drive and East County Road 39
adjoining Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 19, Block 3, Hoglund Addition.
19. Consideration of accepting a portion of annual sidewalk report
and adopting a resolution setting a public hearing.
20. Adjournment.
INFORMATION TO COUNCIL AND FELLOW STAFF MEMBERS
Following are the minutes of the special meeting held Monday,
January 29, 1990. Obviously, the minutes are long overdue. My
sincere apologies for letting this item slip as late as it has. I
will try not to let this occur in the future.
L,
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, January 29, 1990 - 7:00 p.m.
Members Present: Ken Maus, Fran Fair, Warren Smith, Shirley
Anderson, Dan Hlonigen
Members Absent: None
2a. Consideration of accepting feasibilit,, repnrt and estimate of
costs for street and utility improvements to 7th Street and
Minnesota Street.
2b. Consideration of accepting hydrologic study and feasibility
report for improvements to the 7th Street watershed.
Council reviewed the feasibility report and hydrologic study
completed in conjunction with development of the K -Mart
addition. The information contained in both reports provided
cost information that assists the City in developing a finance
plan for the public improvements associated with the X -Mart
project. In addition, the hydrologic study provides
Information that allows the City to complete short-term
planning for the management of storm water created by the
K -Mart addition and also provides information that assists the
City in its planning for future storm water improvements in
the area.
After discussion, motion was made by Shirley Anderson,
seconded by Fran Fair, to accept the feasibility report and
estimate of costs for street and utility improvements to 7th
Street and Minnesota Street and accept hydrologic study and
feasibility report for improvements to the 7th Street
watershed. Motion carried unanimously.
Consideration of project finance plan and consideration of
revised plan for use of tax increment financing.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill outlined two plans for
construction and financing of the improvements associated with
the 7th Street improvement projoctlK-Mart development. He
noted that on September 25, 1999, Council adopted the basic
package for use of tax increment financing, which called for
use of TIF primarily for costs associated with realignment and
construction of 7th Street. After adding soft costs,
including bonding, capitalized interest, and contingency, the
original level of TIP contribution amounted to $470,000.
Subsequent to September 25, 1969, TIF approval, Council acted
Page 1
9
Special Council Minutes - 1/29/90
to remove the Kramer property from the list of property to be
acquired, which resulted in a net reduction of $129,000.
O'Neill reported that changes to the plan for public
improvements, along with the development of more detailed
engineering data, necessitates another look at the project
finance plan. The original finance plan called for
development of the 7th Street right-of-way along a grade that
would have allowed the Hornig property to have access to 7th
Street right-of-way on the south side of the Hornig property.
Due to the need to elevate 7th Street, project costs increased
and caused the elimination of Hornig property access to 7th
Street right-of-way. O'Neill then went on to review two basic
proposals for public improvements and financing of
improvements for Council review. The first proposal called
for development of total private and public improvement costs
in the amount of $822,000. The second plan calls for a total
public and private improvement cost of $752,000. O'Neill went
on to break down the proposed sources of funding for both
plans. O'Neill noted that the added expense associated with
the first plan involves added sanitary sewer and water cost
associated with extending sewer and water from its present
position at the intersection of Minnesota and 7th Street all
the wny to the freeway. Under the second alternative, sewer
and water would not be extended to the freeway and would be
terminated at the intersection of 7th Street and Minnesota
Street. The added cost of this alternative is approximately
$38,000. The first alternative also calls for development of
additional storm water section which would service drainage
coming from the Brennan property. The added cost of this
improvement amounts to approximately $32,000.
O'Neill also reviewed the finance plan which proposed deferral
of assessments against the Brennan property for the storm
sower and sanitary sewer until such time that those utilities
would actually be utilized. In addition, the plan called for
deferring The Lincoln Companies' sewer and water assessment
until such time that the parcel immediately west of the K -Mart
site is developed. O'Neill noted that the tax increment
financing district proceeds can be used to pay for the cost of
the improvements. At the same time, the City, on a deferred
basis, may assess the benefiting property owners for the
improvements that have been received.
Dan Blonigen supported the concept of designing the plans as
outlined in plan #1 with an option of scaling back the plans
in the event the project costs are excessive. He also noted
that Mr. Brennan should agree to pay an assessment in the
future equal to the benefit his property
Pago 2
9
Special Council Minutes - 1/29/90
receives with the installation of the utilities as proposed.
Blonigen also noted that the potential assessment against the
Brennan property should be recorded against the property.
Warren Smith noted that the public improvements as proposed in
plan 01 are acceptable and that they look toward the future
while staying within financial means.
Shirley Anderson was concerned about the precedent that might
be set by deferring some of the assessments associated with
the improvement project.
Fran Fair noted that in her view, the citizens would not
object to extending the sanitary sewer and water lines from
Minnesota Street to a position where they can be more easily
placed under the freeway, thereby encouraging development on
the south side of the freeway.
Ken Maus, in reviewing the finance plan, noted that the plan
is consistent with Council's original concept adopted in
September of 1989.
Chuck DuFresne of The Lincoln Companies noted to Council that
his company prefers option #1.
Pat Pelstring noted that the City could develop a TIF plan and
distribute it based on finance plan #1. Council at a later
date can always make reductions but not additions.
After discussion, motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by
Shirley Anderson, to approve construction and finance pian. 01
and include both option #1 and option #2 in the development of
plans and specifications for the 7th Street improvement
project. Pian #1 should include development of 7th Street
storm sewer. Final design is to be addressed at the public
hearings on the improvements and at the TIF public hearing
scheduled for March 12, 1990. Motion carried unanimously.
4. Consideration of callinq a public hearing on street and
utility improvements to 7th Street and Minnesota Street.
Public hearinq tentatively scheduled for February 12, 1990.
Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Warren Smith, to
call a public hearing on the 7th Street/Minnesota Street
Improvement project, public hearing to be conducted
February 12, 1990. Motion carried unanimously.
SEE RESOLUTION 90-3.
Page 3
(D20
Special Council Minutes - 1/29/90
Therebeingno �fuurrther discussion, the meeting was adjourned.
_
1.
Jeff O'Neill
Assistant Administrator
Page 4
�`J
r.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, April 23, 1990 - 7:00 p.m.
Members Present: Ken Maus, Fran Fair, Warren Smith, Shirley
Anderson, Dan Blonigen
Members Absent: None
2. Approval of minutes.
Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Warren Smith, to
approve the meeting minutes of the regular meeting held
April 9, 1990, as submitted. Motion carried unanimously.
3. Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints.
None forthcoming.
4. Consideration to adopt the final plat for Remmele Addition.
Mike Pudil, representing Remmele, was present and informed
Council that verbal agreements are in place, and it appears
kcly that Rc=cic1,1111 be able to acquire the land proposed
for platting.
After discussion, motion was made by Shirley Anderson,
seconded by Fran Fair, to approve the final plat of the
Remmele Addition subject to the placement of the names of the
actual property owners of land incorporated with the Remmele
Addition. Motion carried unanimously.
5. Consideration to approve the vacation of Fallon Avenue between
Chelsea Road and I-94 and the vacation of drainaqe and utility,
easements.
After discussion, motion was made by Warren Smith, seconded by
Shirley Anderson, to vacate said drainage and utility
easements subject to the recording of the final plat of the
Remmele Addition. Motion carried unanimously.
6. Review proposal to install and 000rate prototype furnace usinq
rubber products as fuel. No formal action requested --review
only.
The Assistant Administrator reported that Ray Schmidt of
Universal Equipment Manufacturing Company hopes to occupy the
structure that will soon be vacated by Larson Manufacturing.
Schmidt has placed earnest money down in anticipation of
Page 1
0
Council Minutes - 4123/90
purchasing the structure; however, he will not complete the
purchase until the City reviews his operational plans which
include the operation and development of a prototype furnace
which uses automobile tire byproducts as fuel. The furnace
proposed for development installation is not an incinerator.
The furnace is designed to use tires in heating the structure
and is not intended to be designed for the sole purpose of
incinerating tires. This furnace is one among other machines
that Schmidt manufactures that are designed to transform waste
tires into materials that can be used for other purposes.
O'Neill went on to report that in addition to the rubber
burning furnace, Schmidt also has developed machinery that
will remove tires from wheels, cut tires into manageable
pieces, and reduce the manageable pieces further into tire
bits which can be used for many purposes, including furnace
fuel. The equipment that Schmidt has designed is relatively
inexpensive and is intended to be used by small scale tire
reducing operations. O'Neill went on to ask Council to
discuss this matter and provide Schmidt with some direction
for future action. Schmidt's next step would be to apply for
an ordinance amendment which would allow this type of furnace
to be installed as a conditional use in an I-1 zone. Ray
Schmidt raltoratcd the- the tire burning flrr,nflre is one
product among many that he is designing and building for the
purpose of recycling and reusing tires. He noted that the
furnace burns at 3,000 degrees, which creates a very clean
burn, with the major byproduct being the steel used in the
steel belted radial tires that are burned in the furnace.
Fran Fair asked how the burn starts. Schmidt noted that the
furnace is designed to burn one minute every four hours. No
other fuel is used to start the burner. Ray Schmidt stated
that we all know that waste tires are a problem. Someone has
to tackle it. We need something on a small scale. He went on
to note that his company must hire a testing agency to test
the furnace prior to PCA approval. A testing process can cost
as much as $30,000. Finally, he went on to note that the use
of the furnace is only a small part of his operation and that
most of his sales and business activity comas from
manufacturing and selling his other tire reducing equipment.
Mayor Maus asked if Schmidt could live up to the conditions
stipulating a review time for operation of the furnace. He
asked Schmidt if he would be willing to remove the furnace in
the event the furnace does not meet with PCA approval.
Schmidt stated that if his burner fails the test, he would
quit using it immediately.
Page 2
(;D?-
Council Minutes - 4/23/90
Warren Smith stated that the City should not say "no" to the
operation of this furnace due to a preconceived notion.
After discussion, it was the general consensus that this
matter should be referred to the Planning Commission for the
purpose of reviewing a proposal to allow installation and
operation of a rubber burning furnace as a conditional use in
an I-1 zone.
Consideration of preliminary plan to develop a shopoinq mall
connected to and extending east of Maus Foods. Plan requires
that Cedar Street be vacated and Palm Street be opened.
At this point in the meeting, Mayor Maus relinquished his
position as Mayor and asked Fran Fair, as acting Mayor, to
conduct the meeting during discussion of this matter.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill reviewed the site plan which
called for development of a 34,000 square foot retail mall
connected to the existing Maus Foods store and extending east
across Cedar Street and into the existing undeveloped parcel
of land. The proposal also called for development of a
roadway around the eastern perimeter nf rhP proposed shopping
center which would cross the tracks and connect to Palm
Street. The proposal would also require relocation of city
sewer, water, and storm sewer structures now located under
Cedar Street. O'Neill asked Council to review the proposal
and indicate to the developers if they should proceed with
further detailed study of the feasibility of the concept. If
Council supports the concept, then this site plan would be
further refined and then submitted to the Planning Commission
for review. Finally, O'Neill noted that if Council is not
supportive of the site plan as proposed, it is his
understanding that the developers will submit a new site plan
which utilizes the available land and utilities as they now
exist. O'Neill also noted that the City Planner, John Uban,
was not supportive of the concept, as the proposal would
create a significant disruption to the traffic pattern
established in Monticello. He noted that Walnut and Cedar
Streets act to strengthen the access from the downtown area
out to the interstate making it possible for commercial
linkage between the shopping center and the downtown area. By
breaking Cedar, the parallel road system breaks down at a
critical point as it approaches the interstate. By directing
traffic to Palm Street, the commercial traffic will increase
on an otherwise residential area. It would further
de-emphasize the parallel road system and desire for
Page 3
Council Minutes - 4/23190
commercial development to attach to downtown and would start
spreading the commercial activity in an east/west fashion that
is not recommended in the comprehensive plan.
Greg Mooney of 21st Century Builders noted that the proposed
development allows space for Maus Foods to expand and stated
that the idea is innovative and worth serious consideration.
Shirley Anderson noted her opposition to closing Cedar Street,
as the proposal will bring significant commercial traffic onto
an otherwise residential street.
Warren Smith noted the high cost of completing such a
re -alignment.
Dan Blonigen stated that we should not consider the proposal
and that the City should not consider spending any money on
the re-routing of utilities.
Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Warren Smith, to not
consider closing Cedar Street, as the proposal is not
consistent with the comprehensive plan. Voting in favor: Dan
Blonigen, Warren Smith, Fran. cAlr, Shirley Anderson.
Abstaining: Ken Maus.
Public hearinq - Consideration of amendment to off-street
parkinq requirements for theaters.
The Assistant Administrator reported that the Monticello
Theater has plans to develop two new screens which results in
the need for an additional 105 parking spaces according to the
present ordinance. In conjunction with the expansion of the
theater, Wright County State Bank plans on purchasing the
Stokes Marine building and developing a parking area for use
by theater patrons. The new parking area will be able to
accommodate approximately 44 stalls, which falls short of the
105 new spaces that are needed with the theater expansion.
Council is asked to consider lessoning the theater parking
requirements from 1 space per 4 seats to 1 space per 5 seats.
O'Neill went on to note that traffic studies are available
which support tho concept of lessoning the theater parking
requirements.
After discussion, motion was made by Fran Fair and seconded by
Shirley Anderson to approve an ordinance amendment which would
lesson the theater parking roquiremont from one parking space
for each five seats based on the design capacity of the main
Page 4
LT -111
Council Minutes - 4/23/90
assembly hall. Said amendment should apply to i'.eaters
located in the Original Plat of Monticello only. SEE
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 186.
9. Public hearing - Consideration of ordinance amendment which
would allow theaters to utilize ioint off-street parkinq
facilities located within five hundred {500} feet of theater.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill noted that the current
ordinance requires that joint parking associated with theater
use must be located within 300 feet of the theater. The
proposed ordinance amendment calls for extending this distance
to 500 feet. By extending the distance as proposed, a number
of public parking spaces can be counted as joint parking
spaces, which enables the theater expansion to meet minimum
parking requirements. O'Neill went on to note that according
to the City Planner, it is not unreasonable to expect people
to walk 500 feet from parking areas to a theater; and such a
distance is common in many other cities.
After discussion, motion was made by Fran Fair and seconded by
Warren Smith to approve the amendment to the ordinance which
allows theaters located in the Oriainal Plat of Monticello to
utilize joint parking located within 500 feet of said theater.
Voting in favor: Warren Smith, Fran Fair, Shirley Anderson,
Ken Maus. Opposed: Dan 0lonigen.
SEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 187.
10. Public hearinq - Consideration of conditional use permit
allowinq the Monticello Theater to use certain public oarkina
areas as "ioint Parkina."
Assistant Administrator O'Neill requested that Council
consider granting a conditional use permit to the Monticello
Theater which would allow the theater to use certain public
parking areas as joint parking. O'Neill noted that plans
developed by the theater called for development of 420 seats.
If a 5 to i parking ratio is used, 85 parking spaces must be
created. The site plan presented calls for demolition of
Stokes Marine and development of 44 parking spaces, which
results in a deficit of 41 parking spaces. The joint parking
conditional use permit as proposed calls for utilization of
public parking spaces within 500 feet of the theater. He
noted that numerous public parking spaces are available within
500 foot and are available for joint use, as the businesses
that these parking spaces service are typically daytime
operations. He wont on to add, however, that there will be
Page 5
0
Council Minutes - 4/23/40
some conflict between the theater and these typical daytime
operations on Saturdays and on some weeknights, as a number of
the businesses in the area do stay open past 7:30 p.m. one or
more times per week.
After discussion, motion was made by Warren Smith and seconded
by Fran Fair to approve the joint parking conditional use
permit subject to the following conditions:
a. City approved joint parking areas shall be located
within 500 feet of the theater.
b. No substantial conflict in the principal operating
hours of the two uses (theater/retail service) for
which the joint uses of the off-street parking
facility is proposed.
C. A properly drawn instrument executed by the parties
concerned for joint use of the off-street parking
facilities duly approved as to form and manner of
execution by the City Attorney shall be filed with
the City Administrator and recorded with the County
Recorder.
d. A properly drawn instrument executed by Wright
County StAtP RAnk And Monticello Theater outlininq
a full and uninterrupted use by Monticello Theater
of 44 parking stalls. Said instrument shall be
filed with the City Administrator and recorded with
the County Recorder.
e. Owner/operator shall provide information to patrons
regarding location of approved parking areas.
Notice shall include publication of maps in the
official city paper, posting of parking areas in
theater lobby, review of parking areas at each show
preview.
Voting in favor of the motion: Ken Maus, Shirley Anderson,
Fran Fair, Warren Smith. Opposed: Dan Blonigen.
11. Public hoarinq - Variance request which would allow more than
50 percent of the off-street parkinq for the Monticello
Theater Addition to be supplied ov a joint parkinq facility.
Withdrawn from agenda, as sufficient parking is available to
moot the 50 percent requirement. No varianco needed.
Page 6
M
Council Minutes - 4/23/90
12. Consideration of a resolution approving plans and
specifications and authorizinq advertisement for bids --7th
Street improvement project.
Motion was made by Shirley Anderson, seconded by Dan Blonigen,
to adopt a resolution approving plans and specifications and
authorizing advertisement for bids. Motion carried
unanimously. SEE RESOLUTION 90-16.
13. Consideration of loq structure for Ellison Park.
It was reported to Council that the Lions Club will commit
labor and an annual dollar contribution toward the cost of the
project. Annual contributions toward payment of the cost of
the project will possibly amount to $6,000 to $8,000.
Development of the structure is planned for the June 9, 1990,
weekend.
After discussion, motion was made by Shirley Anderson,
seconded by Dan Blonigen, to authorize the City of Monticello
to purchase a log shelter from Voyageur Log Homes of Orr,
Minnesota, for a cost of $12,338, and to further authorize
purctanc cf rcofing mAter.ials and installation of a concrete
slab and wiring at an estimated cost of $2,512, bringing the
total estimated cost of the building to $14,844. Motion
carried unanimously.
14. Consideration of resolution approvinq the sale and transfer of
ownership in cable system and transfer of the cable franchise
of Jones Intercable to FBN Cablevision.
Mayor Maus noted that the cable system reception needs
improvement and wondered if it is not time to stipulate an
improvement in the service. Rick Wolfsteller concurred that
the reception is not as good in Monticello because the signal
must be brought over cable lines from Buffalo. He noted that
the reception would be better if the television signal was
sent via microwave to Monticello and then distributed to cable
users in town. He wont on to state that unfortunately, the
City is not in the position at this time to stipulate
improvements in the signal; however, the cable company is
aware of the problem and may take steps to improve the signal.
After discussion, motion was made by Warren Smith, seconded by
Fran Fair, to adopt a rosolution approving tho sale and
transfer from Jones to FON Cablovision, which would include
the transfer of the cable franchise rights. Motion carried
unanimously. SEE RESOLUTION 90-18.
Pago 7
0
Council Minutes - 4/23/90
15. Consideration of resolution amending the Sherburne/Wright
County Cable Communication Commission's joint and cooperative
agreement.
Administrator Wolfsteller noted that the voting structure of
the cable consortium is weighted in a manner that allows three
Of the larger communities of the consortium, including Elk
River, Buffalo, and Monticello, to entirely control the
decision making of the cable commission. It was the concern
of the commission that too much power is in the hands of three
cities, which might discourage the remaining cities to remain
in the consortium. Wolfsteller went on to note that it was
not the intent of the largest communities within the cable
commission to control the actions of the committee. He agreed
that it is a ten -city cooperative agreement; at least half of
the voting members should vote in the affirmative for official
actions. Wolfsteller noted that it was not Monticello's
intent to have significant power over the other commission
member cities and stated that he had no problem with the new
voting arrangement proposed in the resolution.
After discussion, motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by
Warren Smith, to Approve n resolution which notes that all
official actions of the commission must receive a majority of
all authorized votes cast on that issue at a duly constituted
meeting of the commission and the affirmative vote of five
directors. Motion carried unanimously.
SEE RESOLUTION 90-17,
16. Consideration of hirinq a Municipal Construction Inspector for
the City of Monticello.
John Simola noted that with the second advertisement for City
Inspector, we received an additional eight applications and
conducted two additional interviews. We received a total of
30 applications all together and conducted a total of 7
interviews. Simola recommended that the City hire Tom Bose at
a starting salary of $26,000 contingent upon his passing a
physical that is now required by City policy.
Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Shirley Anderson, to
approve tho appointment of Thomas Bose to the position of
Municipal Construction Inspector at a starting salary of
$26,000. Motion carried unanimously.
Pago 8
6Z)
Council minutes - 4/23/90
17. Consideration of hirinq a water/Collection Svstems operator to
fill existinq vacancy.
Administrator Wolfsteller noted that Rich Cline, a current
City employee, and an applicant from North Dakota are prime
candidates for this position. At this time, the staff
recommendation is to hire Rich Cline for the position;
however, Wolfsteller noted that the applicant from North
Dakota has excellent qualifications and appears to be more
qualified for the position. At the same time, however, Rich
Cline has done a good job for the City in his current position
and will likely be able to achieve the same level of expertise
as the other candidate with training and time on the job. In
addition, Rich Cline is the candidate that the Water
Superintendent has selected as his favorite candidate.
Shirley Anderson noted that Rich Cline has been injured in the
past on the job. Will the injury affect his ability to do the
job? John Simola reported that Rich is off restrictions and
should be able to fulfill all job duties. Shirley Anderson
asked if this job is easier than his job with the streets
department. Simola stated that both positions require heavy
lifting on occ3yiora.
Ken Maus noted that Rich Cline has not missed work for a long
period of time, and he is comfortable that Rich has overcome
his physical problems. Ken Maus noted that the City should
recognize the desire of individuals to transfer or move up
from within the organization.
Warren Smith was uncomfortable with hiring an individual that
is not the best qualified for the position. He noted that
maybe it makes sense to bring a better qualified person in
from the outside.
Dan Slonigon suggested that we transfer Rich Cline from his
present position to the new position and advertise for Rich's
old position.
Fran Fair noted that Rich is a good employee, and his
personality and skills are known and as such could make him
just as qualified as the candidate from North Dakota.
page 9
02,
Council Minutes - 4/23/90
After discussion, a motion was made by Dan Blonigen, seconded
by Fran Fair, to transfer Rich Cline to the position of
Water/Wastewater Collection Systems Operator. voting In
favor: Dan Blonigen, Fran Fair, Ken Maus. Opposed: Shirley
Anderson, Warren Smith. Warren Smith stated that he is
opposed because he does not feel that we are hiring the best
person for the job given the information presented.
After discussion, motion was made by Shirley Anderson,
seconded by Warren Smith, to authorize advertisement for the
position vacated in the transfer of Rich Cline to the position
of Water/Wastewater Collections Systems Operator.
18. Consideration of proclaiming Mau 6-12 "Drinking Water Week."
Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Shirley Anderson, to
proclaim May 6-12 as "Drinking Water Week" in Monticello.
Motion carried unanimously.
19. Approval of bills.
Motion made by Warren Smith, seconded by Shirley Anderson, to
apprc•:c bills as submitted.
20. Other matters.
June 4 was designated as the day of the annual joint meeting
between city Council and all City commissions.
There being no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned.
Jefg O'Neill
Assistant Administrator
Pago 10
e
Council Agenda - 5/14/90
Consideration of appeal on a public nuisance order.
Applicant, Luke Torell. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Luke Torell, 107 Marvin Elwood Road, was cited for a
public nuisance, a non-current licensed car, on March 30,
1990. Mr. Torell did not license his automobile within ten
days, and the Wright County Sheriff's Department was notified
on April 10, 1990, to have a Wright County Deputy stop by and
ticket Mr. Torell for a non-current licensed vehicle. In
talking with the Sheriff's Deputy, Mr. Torell had put the tabs
that were for this public nuisance car on one of his personal
'cars that he has been driving. When he was stopped for some
type of violation, they found that he had the wrong tabs on
the wrong car. The Sheriff's Department explained that the
correct tabs were now on that car, so it is a licensed
automobile. On April 20, 1990, we sent Mr. Torell a new
public nuisance letter indicating he had a licensed, immovable
car. The car was up on blocks just like it was on March 30,
1990; so it appeared to me, as the Zoning Administrator, that
the car was immovable. On April 22, 1990, 1 received an
appeal letter from Mr. Torell indicating he would nice to
appeal the public nuisance for which he is being cited.
Enclosed is a copy of his official appeal. Mr. Torell
explains that the car does run, but it cannot be moved under
its own power because it is up on blocks and it does not have
a clutch In it.
A. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Acknowledge Mr. Toreii's appeal and give him additional
days to keep the licensed, immovable car at his property.
2. Acknowledge Mr. Torell's appeal but do not give him any
additional days to keep the licensed, immovable car at
his residence.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This is a tough request for which to make a recommendation.
Yes, the applicant does keep the vehicle to the rear -most
portion of his property behind a storage shod. Currently, the
vehicle is immovable and cannot run under its own power. if
Mr. Toroll, indeed, does intend to use this car for racing and
does have it entered in a certain period of events during the
summer racing season, maybe one would consider allowing him to
Council Agenda - 5/14/90
keep it there during the summer. But Mr. Torell does have a
two -automobile garage. If this car is that valuable as he
explains it is, it is probably in his best interest to keep
the vehicle under cover to keep it from being subject to
possible vandalism and elements of the weather while left
outside in its current location.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the official appeal by Mr. Luke Torell; Copy of the
March 30, 1990, public nuisance letter; Copy of the April 20,
1990, public nuisance letter.
0
y/ iso
�cisons,, /� � /j/Lv f �iC�,,•ov/A�
or A/7
Goil�/�i-"o.v e
e
0
Lac%o/ df ALL 74'ocs
/Jr y / Gr► r �^tTS y
%14S
or/, "Q T Sc�i��iil�� �14P 4
,.y9 G . ""Z/ e "�i!D'!/4 � /S � /%OGS
t/j/o!/O /j d�SD ' /S GOrll��•�'G7� A Givrx/c
/e.
—
�rrf,ire--
%I/Gea�pr/y-
btc.�
/yJOA sar/ YY/ /r1.� �H�� rOro� cel- o?
�Or is/r.'�y ora'' �►/so p'o.�►�-'' AcG
J
GOu/a, q�Sa
�71- /�'r"f `p r °S�rrGG o 7'
1lo �:� �s-�if/ seri%/,;,. �:-7/ ,;yJ ..r
/t/E'"/�' �,,�e,. fr-.�r��vs ,�s•� �i jos
Gori ,1 _7i,,�','o?-17 • 4 1" /1�i�. �Z' `
?le411 Ke, � 704 far
. fy/fie / �I� �r•,,r� ,� ,��� �,dr,� .
;SO/ e Otic/ _ L�jliY`� Af• ►�r Plee401'Z.
S��i�,y%►r�.�.�,L-rte. G
rho
�-
Cdr
C�l.►-
�,il/r�.e. /�/J� r/'o/u,�✓ tf�s, Gvii� tvo�/�
X -e ford 44? e
Br„ er- /� /T/lfo �f�iosvj �✓l�i,'� !�-
�=� 7!i/r
CU
7-1-1
CHAPTER 1
PUBLIC NUISANCES
SECTION:
7-1-1: Activities, Business Prohibited
7-1-2: Exceptions
7-1-3: Public Nuisance
7-1-4: Enforcement
7-1-1
7-1-1: ACTIVITIES, BUSINESS PROHIBITED: Subsequent to the enactment
hereof, the following acts, conditions, activities, business
or businesses are hereby prohibited except as hereinafter permitted:
(A) No unwholesome substance, garbage, refuse, offal, or similar
substances shall be brought, deposited, left, dumped, or allowed to
accumulate within the City. For purposes of this section of the City
Ordinances entitled "Public Nuisances," refuse shall include but not be
limited to the following or similar items stored or parked outside:
1. Passenger automobiles, station wagons, trucks, and other vehicles
not currently licensed (if applicable) by the State which are, because
L of mechanical deficiency, incapable of movement under their own power;
2. Passenger automobiles, station wagons, trucks, and other vehicles
which are currently licensed by the State but, because of mechanical
deficiency, are incapable of operation on a public street or highway
under their own power, or passenger automobiles, station wagons, trucks,
and other vehicles which are capable of operation under their own power
but which are not currently licensed by the State, when stored or parked
outside for more than 30 days, unless prior to the expiration of the 30
days the owner of said vehicle petitions the City Council for and the
City Council grants an extension of the time limit on outside storage.
In reviewing such application, the City Council shall consider:
a) the number of such vehicles stored on the petitioner's
property;
b) the condition of the vehicles for which the extension is
sought and the hazzards posed by such vehicles to public health
and safety;
C) the effect of said vehicles on neighboring property and
property owners;
3. Household appliances such as but not limited to washing machines,
dryers, refrigerators, stoves, freezers, television and radio sots,
phonographs, and similar items, vehicle parts, old machinery, machinery
parts, tires, tin cans, bottles, building materials (unless current
building permit for their use is in force), wood (unless used for fire
wood and neatly stacked), metal, or any other material or case off
material, and similar items. (3/26/90 •184)
0
X
R
250 Fast Broadway
,Monticello, 'AN 553629245
Phone: (612) 295-2711
,Lfeuo: (612) 333.5739
DATE: March 30, 1990
OWNER: Luke Torell
107 Marvin Elwood Road
Monticello, MN 55362
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 155-026-001040
Block 1, Lot 4 Anders Wilhelm Addition
Dear Luke Torell:
A violation of Monticello City Ordinance 7-1-1 has been cited at
the above property description.
x Non current licensed motor vehicle.
Non current licensed recreational vehicle.
Refuse.
Household appliance.
Building materials.
Other.
Please remove or eliminate the nuisance noted above within LO days
of this notice. A violation of the ordinance is a misdemeanor
punishable by a fine of not more than $700.00 and by imprisonment
in the County jail of not more than 90 days. If the ordinance
violation is not corrected within 10 days, the matter will be
referred to the County Sheriff or City Attorney for further action.
A copy of the above -referenced ordinance is enclosed. If you have
any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
CITY OF MONTICELLO
Gazcy Anderson
Zoning Administrator
0
ktON-IICELLO DATE: April 20, 1990
OWNER: Luke Torell
250 East Broadwav 107 Marvin Elwood Road
Monticello, MN 55362.9245 Monticello, !LN 55362
Phone: (612) 295.2711
Metro: (612) 333.5739
LEGA-L DESCRIPTION: 155-026-001070
Block 1, Lot 7, Anders Wilhelm Addition
Dear Luke Torell,
A violation of Monticello City Ordinance 7-1-1 has been cited at
the above property description.
Non current licensed motor vehicle.
r Non current licensed recreational vehicle.
Refuse.
Household appliance.
Building materials.
Other. Licensed Immovable Car
Please remove or eliminate the nuisance noted above within 10 days
of this notice. A violation of the ordinance is a misdemeanor
punishable by a fine of not more than $700.00 and by imprisonment
in the County jail of not more than 90 days. If the ordinance
violation is not corrected within 10 days, the matter will be
referred to the County Sheriff or City Attorney for further action.
A copy of the above -referenced ordinance is enclosed. If you have
any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincorely,
CITY OF MONTICELLO
Gary Anderson
Zoning Administrator
O
Council Agenda - 5/14/90
5. Consideration of a conditional use request to allow a daycare
(headstart program) in an R-2 (single and two family
residential) zone. Applicant, First Baptist Church/Wright
County Community Action Headstart Program. (G.A.)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The First Baptist Church, formerly Temple Baptist Church, has
been approached by the Wright County Community Action Group to
start a headstart program in a portion of the existing First
Baptist Church building. The proposed use is allowable only
as a conditional use subject to nine conditions within an R-2
(single and two family residential) zone. The Wright County
Community Action Group is proposing t o start a headstart
program with operation days similar to the school district,
mid-September to mid-May. There will be two sessions of
classes held each day with the children transported to the
facility in a small school type bus and then transported back
to their homes at the end of each day's session. There will
be no other vehicles used at this site with the exception of
two school teachers and two headstart program teachers. The
existing site to be serviced with off-street parking and
loading/unloading requirements is in the process of a five-
year program to be completed within a five-year time Spdn wiLh
the First Baptist Church, the owners of the property. At the
time of the proposed request, therewill. be no hard surfacing
or curbing done on this parking lot which is to be used by the
Wright County Community Action Group. The children in this
headstart program will be utilizing the existing East 4th
Street Park facilities. In speaking with Arlene Wirth,
representative of this group, she voiced complete agreement in
meeting all nine of the conditions listed in the conditional
use application.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the conditional use request to allow a daycare
(hoadstart program) in an R-2 (single and two family
residential) zone.
2. Deny the conditional use request to allow a daycare
(headstart program) in an R-2 (single and two family
residential) zone.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
With this proposed use of the First Baptist Church being used
primarily other than the times that the church is in session,
Council Agenda - 5/14/90
certain rooms would be used for a headstart program being
operated during the school year. City staff recommends
approval of the conditional use request with the applicants
meeting all of the nine conditions related to this conditional
use request.
SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed conditional use request;
Copy of the ordinance section listing the nine conditions of
an R-2 zone; Copy of the memo from Wright County Community
Action.
[D] Day Care - group nursery provided that:
1. No overnight facilities are provided for
the children served. Children are delivered
and removed daily.
2. The front yard depth shall be a minimum
of thirty-five (35) feet.
J. Adequate off-street parking and access
is provided in compliance with Chapter
J, Section 5 of this Ordinance.
d. Adequate off-street loading and service
enLrm uvea ntu pYuv ial sal lu aumpliauee with
Chapter 3, Section 6 of this Ordinance.
5. 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.
6. All signing and informational or visual
communication devices shall be in compliance
with Chapter J, Section 9 of this Ordinance.
7. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this Ordinance
are considered and satisfactorily mot.
8. The regulations and conditions of the Minnesota
Department of Public Welfare, Public welfare
Manuel 11-31-30 an adopted, amended and/or
changed are satisfactorily mot.
9. A written indication of preliminary, pending
or final license approval from the regulatory
welfare agency in supplied to the City.
9
WRIGHT COUNTY COMMUNITY ACTION, INC.
Community Action Building
Box 39 t
Waverly, Minnesota 55390
(612) 658-4415
MEMO
DATE: April 13, 1990
T0: Residents of Monticello living near the First Baptist Church
FROM: Arlene Wirth 0
Director of the WCCA Head Start Program
We are applying for a conditional use permit to use one (1) classroom at
the Baptist Church for a Head Start Center. I feel that you should have some
basic information about what Head Start is and how it will impact your
neighborhood.
Head Start is a program that provides a comprehensive, preschool education
to enrolled 3. 4 & 5 year old children from low income families in the
Monticello area. A Head Start Mini -bus picks up the children from their
h== =-a brings them to the center site four (4) days n week dllring the
regular school year. Children are given a snack, and lunch along with a
planned educational curriculum.
There will be two class sessions offered, one in the morning and one in the
afternoon. A total of about eighteen (18) children will be attending each
session. Three Head Start staff will be on site to supervise and instruct
the class. Children are indoors most of the time. When outdoors, they are
constantly under staff supervision. They would be using the city park across
the street for their outdoor play area.
Head Start provides a quality program that is beneficial to the children,
families and community. If you have any questions or concerns, please caLl
me of 658-4415 or Pastor Sams at 295-3552.
0
Council Agenda - 5/14/90
Consideration of conditional use permit which would allow
retail commercial activity in a PZM zone. Applicant, JKMV
Partnership/21st Century Builders. (J.O.)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
JKMV Partnership, along with 21st Century Builders, requests
that the Planning Commission and City Council consider
allowing retail activity to occur in a PZM zone as a
conditional use. The Planning Commission has scheduled a
special meeting and will be conducting a public hearing
regarding this matter at 5:30 p.m., May 14, 1990. City
Council will be reviewing this item immediately following the
special meeting of the Planning Commission. Staff will be
reporting on the Planning Commission's recommendation as part
of the presentation of this item to Council.
As you recall, Council previously denied consideration of a
development plan for the area which included closing of Cedar
Street and relocation of utilities. As a result of this
decision and based upon additional input from City staff, a
new site plan has been prepared for City review. The
following is a brief review of the purpose of the PZM zone
along with a review of the site plan.
PZM Zone Purpose (taken from comments made by City Planner)
The purpose and intent of the PZM district clearly calls for
development that is sensitive to the surrounding area and
environment and must produce a creative and innovative
development with aesthetic controls as a transition between
high density residential and low intensity commercial. Maus
Foods would be considered a high intensity commercial, and a
continuation of high intensity commercial activity Is not the
Intention of the PZM district. The district also clearly
intends to preserve open space and unique characteristics of
the surrounding land and must address all of these issues
through a complete submittal.
An important part of the PZM district is to create significant
separation between commercial activity and residential
development. As the area directly north of the proposed
shopping center is residential, including the railroad right-
of-way, a significant setback of berming and landscaping would
be anticipated. Also, woodland preservation is part of the
review, much of which has already boon removed from the site
prior to submittal.
Council Agenda - 5/14/90
Setback requirements within the PZM are, as a minimum, those
requirements found in the zone most similar to the development
proposed. The perimeter setbacks can be increased as needed
by the City of Monticello to properly integrate the
development into the community considering the guidelines of
the ordinance and the comprehensive plan.
SITE PLAN REVIEW
The characteristics of the new site plan for the most part are
consistent with the suggestions made by the City Planner.
Included in the new plan are greater setback distances between
adjoining properties, additional landscaping, and a reduction
in the size of the structure. In addition, the structure has
to be turned 90 degrees so that it will now face Highway 25.
This was also a suggestion made by the City Planner.
Setbacks
The proposed plan meets all building setback minimums for the
B-3 zone. No formal setback requirements are in place for the
PZM district.
As you can see on the attached site plan, the project calls
for a 10 -foot setback parking/drive area and adjoining
residential areas. Trees and other landscaping plantings will
be placed in the 10 -foot setback areas along the northern and
eastern boundaries of the properties. The final landscaping
plan is not available at this time.
Landscapinq
The landscape plan shows approximately 40 trees, which meets
the minuimum level of tree plantings had this development been
located In a B-3 zone. Since the development is located In
a PZM zone, the City at its discretion may require additional
landscaping for the purpose of creating a buffer between
commercial and residential uses. It is suggested that the
City Planner provide some input into the design of the
landscape plan and assist the City in determining to what
extent additional plantings are necessary to create the proper
separation between commercial and residential land uses. The
City/Planning Commission could approve the conditional use
permit subject to such a review.
Council Agenda - 5/14/90
Access Drives
The site plan submitted calls for development of an access
drive that is 5 feet from the 5th Street right-of-way/BN
tracks. According to City ordinance, driveways must be
located at least 40 feet from a City right-of-way; therefore,
this portion of the site plan does not comply with City
ordinance. It is suggested in one of the proposed conditions
associated with this conditional use permit that the developer
simply move the entrance 40 feet from the property line, or
the entrance could be eliminated altogether. It should be
noted that an entrance to Cedar Street at such a close
proximity to the railroad tracks might be creating a traffic
hazard. For instance, vehicles turning north onto Cedar
Street from the access might have some difficulty seeing train
traffic coming from the east. To what extent this potential
traffic hazard is a bona fide problem is difficult to say
given the infrequency of train traffic.
In addition, truck traffic servicing Maus Foods currently
utilizes Cedar Street for maneuvering space during the process
entering and exiting Maus Foods' loading berths. Using City
right-of-way for maneuvering space should be discouraged, as
a traffic hazard is created when trucks are backing and
turning on City right-of-way. The presence of the drive area
across the street might encourage the use of the drive for
additional maneuvering space, which might result in a
worsening of the existing poor traffic situation.
The site plan also calls for development of an access drive on
the south side of the parking lot which is off -set from the
6th Street right-of-way. The site plan should be improved by
realigning this drive to match 6th Street. Alignment with 6th
Street would allow vehicles entering the development from 6th
Street to simply cross Cedar rather than cross diagonally in
an unsafe manner. Moving the drive as proposed would also
require that the parking displaced by the drive be moved to
the south of the access drive.
Parkinq Spaces
The plan shows 124 stalls, which is consistent with ordinance
requirements.
Demolition Debris on 5th Street Right-of-way
It is my understanding that demolition debris, including tree
stumps, possibly construction material, and other unknown
materials, was burled in an area along the northern property
Council Agenda - 5/14/90
line and within the 5th Street right-of-way. This material
was buried without authorization after verbal notification to
the contractor (Veit Construction of Rogers, MN) by City staff
that this was not permitted. Consequently, at some time in
the future, this may need to be removed. This material will
decompose and could affect the stability of the railroad or if
5th Street is ever developed; or if a utility line such as
storm sewer is installed at the dump location, the debris may
cause settlement and would need to be excavated and replaced
with good fill material. At the present time, however, the
presence of the debris is not creating a noticeable problem.
It is suggested that one of the conditions require that the
property owner remove the debris material in the event it
becomes necessary to do so. This responsibility could be
formally recorded against the property. The City Council
could also require removal of the material with the
development to assure no future problems.
Summary
It appears clear that the site plan, with some modifications
as noted above, is consistent with the goal and intent of the
PZM zone. Following under alternative #1 is a list of
conditions that Council may wish to attach to the conditional
use permit.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Motion to approve conditional use permit request subject
to the following conditions:
1. Development of final landscaping and berming plan
creating effective transition between commercial
and residential properties as determined by the
City Planner. A bond in the amount of 1009 of the
cost to install borming and landscaping shall be
provided to the City prior to issuance of a
building pormlL.
2. Development of a retaining wall shall be
accompanied by installation of a safety fence for
the purpose of eliminating access to the edge of
the retaining wall. Fence shall be made of
weather resistant material and be at least 6 feet
high.
3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, drainage
and retaining wall construction plans shall be
approved City onginoer.
Council Agenda - 5/14/90
4. Southerly most access onto Cedar Street shall be
aligned with 6th Street.
5. Northerly most access onto Cedar Street shall be
moved 40 feet to the south or eliminated.
6. A document identifying the approximate location of
demolition or unknown material on the 5th Street
right-of-way and designating the property owner as
the party responsible for removal of the debris and
restoration shall be recorded against the property.
This would require someone in the future to be
responsible when and if problems develop.
2. Motion to deny approval of the conditional use permit
request.
If the applicants are not willing or able to satisfy the
conditions noted, then the Planning Commission/Council
may elect to deny the conditional use permit process.
Condition number 5 is the only condition that would need
a variance prior to final approval. If Planning
Commission elect" to eliminate condition number 5 as one
of the conditions, then the applicants would need to
obtain a varianco. This process would require an
additional public hearing process.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit
request subject to conditions noted in alternative Al and any
other conditions that Planning Commission/Council might add.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Site plan.
9
Numbers /tq),fCh
Re
sidential
too'
M-1
Vacant
%III RAN STUDY
r. We
Mfw
moon Imli
sidential
too'
M-1
Vacant
Council Agenda - 5/14/90
7. Consideration of approval of preliminary and final plat of Kirkman
addition. (KMART) Applicant, The Lincoln Companies. ( J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing regarding this matter
on 5/1/90 and recommends to Council that the preliminary plat of Kirkman
Addition be approved. If no changes to the preliminary plat are
necessary, Council is also asked to consider approval of the final plat
as well.
The Lincoln Companies and the City of Monticello are joining together
toward development of a plat that will "clean-up" a complex set of legal
descriptions associated with the K -Mart development area. Incorporated
into the plat are properties now owned by the City (formerly owned by
Holthous and Pratt) and The Lincoln Companies. The plat includes street
and easement dedication areas associated with the 7th Street improvement
project.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve preliminary and final plat of Kirkman Addition.
; (SAL:
Approval of the plat is important, as it includes dedication of the
7th Street right-of-way. This dedication makes the 7th Street
improvement project possible.
II ^�}iu."4-he prclimirary and final plat meet City requlrFments with one
II .r`�yLi exception. Due to a conflict between the K -Mart site plan and the
original design of the 7th Street right-of-way, the K -Mart site
C slightly overlaps a portion of the standard 80' right-of-way. At
L��•(i;li�y the point of overlap, the right-of-way is reduced; however, a road
`lar easement has been granted to the City in lieu of the full 80 -foot
width. Although this situation is not ideal, staff views this
discrepancy as being somewhat benign.
Also, a 6' side yard utility eosement along the eastern boundary of
the K -Mart is not included on the plat, as The Lincoln Companies
has already boon awarded a variance which allowed a zero lot line
at this location.
2. Motion to deny approval of preliminary plat of Kirkman Addition.
City Council should select this alternative if problems with the
plat are discovered.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION,:
Staff recommends approval of tho preliminary and final plat, as the
Kirkman plat cleans up a complex set of motes and bounds legal
descriptions. In addition, plat development is a requirement of the
development agreement between the City and The Lincoln Companies. And
finally, the plat is in sufficient compliance with the standards noted
C In the subdivision ordinance.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of final plat --Kirkman Addition.
10
Council Agenda - 5/14/90
a. Consideration of rezoning request of land south of realigned
7th Street right-of-way from PZM (performance zone mixed) to
B-3 (hiqhway business) zoninq. Applicant, The Lincoln
Companies. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
On May 1, 1990, the Planning Commission conducted a public
hearing regarding this matter and recommended to Council that
the proposed rezoning be approved.
The proposed amendment to the zoning map is a non-
controversial item which calls for changing the zoning map to
reflect the final alignment of the 7th Street right-of-way.
As you may recall, the 7th Street right-of-way was originally
planned to swing toward the freeway as it was extended west
from Locust Street. All points to the south of this original
alignment are zoned under the B-3 category. All points to the
north of this original alignment fall under the PZM category.
The 7th Street alignment which was adopted is not in the same
position as the original alignment; therefore, it makes sense
to adjust the zoning map accordingly.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. , Notion to approve the proposed zoning map amendment.
N"` ,
Motion based on the finding that the amendment is
consistent with the geographical character of the area
�1 and that the original intent of the zoning ordinance was
to utilize 7th Street as the boundary between the PZM
zone and the B-3 zone; therefore, it makes sense to
change the zoning map to match the final alignment of 7th
Street.
Motion to deny ordinance amendment.
Denial of the ordinance amendment would leave a sliver of
PZM property between the B-3 zone and the 7th Street
right-of-way. The configuration of this sliver of land
would render it useless for development.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that City Council approve the proposed zoning
map amendment.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Zoning map showing existing 7th Street boundary line and
proposed boundary lino.
m
R-
411
00, !
Two
.• 5 , r Jj �••�.4,t «�-f ��~ µ y.v ' �•�'�'Ot"'+1''.' ' �.}� e } 7� (`� JijB�J �J c!
\ � �' ' �..:.:1 .J�''°1.�,� J1 1t]•� � (^ "'�tie,,,jcc 77
�. SCHOOL,
• �,r• .^t ;ems • �.Jy,, t� .t �j }� M't
yj
'- ii.^ � „, l c, �'�''� �' p ..� ��� • ��• 4e:_ �r M . T�. , t --i lam" t„i l�R+�J 1•: �t�S�r�
_ '11FF ��'S.� .• �' ,�•M `.... (`,{ �4t (.� r, 'fit. t'..^�=�
t , '•-n a��•�iti�': •i tt+?rte F�« `t'il^' �jit)� f. ..�r�.% 1 J• tii (•;..
�,� :,,,,•'pun �.. 1.•"� { ,' �.
`p NIGNWAY ..
1 ! ,
Council Agenda - 5/14/90
9. Consideration of resolutions authorizing the sale of bonds for
Tax Increment District 1-1 (7th Street Project)_ and refunding
of 1983 G.O. Bond along with Meadows 2nd Addition phase II
improvement. (R.W.)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
With the bid opening scheduled for May 18 for the improvement
of 7th Street and Minnesota Street as part of the K -Mart
project, it is now time to consider authorizing the sale of
bonds to finance these improvements as part of the City's Tax
Increment District 1-1. The City has already incurred costs
in land acquisition for the 7th Street alignment; and with
K -Mart now under construction, it is recommended that
authorization be granted to sell bonds in the amount of
$560,000, which is in accordance with the adopted budget
within the tax increment plan. According to the adopted
budget, the tax increment revenue that will be generated from
the K -Mart project will be sufficient to retire the bonded
indebtedness, and additional revenue will be available in the
future from proposed assessments pertaining to Minnesota and
7th Street improvements that can be utilized by the City for
its revolving improvement funds in the future.
In discussions with Jerry Shannon of Springsted, Inc., our
bond consultant, regarding this bond issue, it has been
recommended by Sprinqsted that the City also consider issuing
a second bond issue at the same time to be used to refund
(refinance) our existing 1983 G.O. Bond that was used
primarily to funs: improvements to the Meadow Oak Subdivision.
The original 1983 bond was for $1,150,000 and has a remaining
principal balance of $620,000 and currently has a call feature
which allows us to prepay the bonds by August 1, 1990. The
remaining principal has an average interest rate of over 88
interest, and it is recommended by Sprinqsted that we could
refinance this bond at a lower interest rate and save interest
cost in the future. It is expected that the interest rate on
a refinanced issue would be 6-1/28 to 6-3/48 and save the City
a substantial amount of interest over the remaining 6 years of
this bond.
If the Council approves the refunding authorization, it is
also proposed to include an additional $100,000 to this bond
lssuo for the purpose of financing the improvements to the
Meadows 2nd Addition phase II improvement. Initially, I had
recommended that the City could finance internally the
construction costs associated with this improvement since it
was a small amount; but now that we have the ability to
incorporate this funding requirement with the refunding Issue,
it makes more sense for tho City to sell bonds since the
interest rates are favorable. It is proposed that the
12
Council Agenda - 5/14/90
refunding issue would be spread over 10 years, increasing the
life by 4 years over the present 6 -year payment schedule.
Since the Meadow Oak Subdivision has experienced an above -
normal delinquency rate, the City has in the past made its
bond payments by transferring funds from other bond issues
with surpluses to make the payments. It is hoped that
spreading this out over a longer period of time will ease the
burden on the City in addition to saving us interest cost.
Fortunately, the City has had surplus money to make the bond
payments even with the delinquent ratio being high; but if the
bond is not refinanced, the City may have to levy additional
funds to make up for continued delinquencies.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Adopt the resolutions authorizing both bond sales, one
for the 7th Street improvement in the amount of $560,000,
and the second for the refinancing of 1983 bond issue and
the Meadows Second Addition improvements for $730,000.
2. Adopt resolution authorizing sale of only the $560,000
7th Street improvement issue.
3. Do not adopt resolution --this does not appear to be a
reasonable alternative for the 7th Street improvement
since K -Mart is under construction. In regard to the
refinancing of the 1983 bond issue, the City does have a
choice on this issue; but it does appear feasible to save
Interest expense by refinancing.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the staff's recommendation that both resolutions
authorizing the sale of $560,000 and $730,000 be approved.
The 7th Street improvement project will be covered by tax
increments generated from the K -Mart project, and the
refinancing of the 1983 bond issue makes economic sense and
also allows the City to finance the improvements to the
Meadows 2nd Addition without using our capital revolving
outlay fund monies.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of recommendations from Springsted concerning both bond
sales; Resolutions authorizing the sale of bonds.
G� 13
N ,\
C�
Recommendations
For
City of Monticello, Minnesota
$560,000
General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1990A
$730,000
General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 1990B
Study No. 3641
SPRINGSTED Incorporated
May 10. 1990
F111",
SPRINGSTED
PUSUC FINANCE ADVISORS
65 East Savemh Placa Stmo 100
SaIn1 Paul, IAN 55101.2143
(612) 2233000
Fo,: 612.223.3002
May 10, 1990
Mr. Ken Maus, Mayor
Members, City Council
Mr. Rick WoBsteller, Administrator
City Hall
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
Re: Recommendations for the Issuance of:
$560,000 General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds. Series 1990A
$730,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 19908
We respectfully request your consideration of our recommendations for the Issuance of
these bonds according to the terms and conditions set forth In the attached proposed
Official Terms of Offerings. In these recommendations we will discuss each issue separately
and then we will discuss items common to each Issue.
01 $560,000 General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1990A
The proceeds of this issue will be used to Improve roadways along 7th Street and Minnesota
Avenue and the acquisition of right-of-way facilitating those Improvements. The
improvements will take place within Tax Increment Financing District 1-1 and benefit primarily
the K Mart development. The project costs of this program are set forth in Appendix I.
The security for the debt service of this issue Is provided from projected increment Income to
be received from Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-1 and the City's Development
District No. 1. As a supplement to the anticipated Increment Income, it Is anticipated that
approximately $235,000 of project cost may be assessed against benefited property. While
these assessments are not specifically pledged to the debt service of this Issue, they may be
used in the event Increment Income Is Insufficient to provide 100% of debt service.
It is anticipated that K Mart will have their facility up and open by late fall this year and further,
that the full value of the facility will be on the tax rolls as of January 2, 1991. The first
increment, therefore, will not be received by, the City until 1992. Since this is an economic
development district, the length of the district will run for a period not to exceed ton years
from the date of approval of the plan or eight years of increment, whichever Is lose. The
district was approved on March 12, 1990 and therefore ton years from that date will be
March 12, 2000. The first Increment will be received in 1992 and the last Increment to be
received will be in 1999. Therefore, the district will close no later than March 12, 2000.
hdana OOmo hnf= Otsa M=0Irxl W to
135 Na101 617OU 0600 CW. 000 W.0'wd 500 Elm Grow Rana
Su;O 2015 swo GOD Sabo 101
lna.ann;W.z, aJ 413204.2498 Ovortlnd Palk. FS 662114533 Cm Grove. WI 531"-0037
(317) G84 GOOD 101.'0345-8002 (414) 71328222
Pa• 317044 0004 f a• (913) 345-1770 Pa, 414-7.82.29D4 04?
City of Monticello, Minnesota
May 10, 1990
Since revenues will not be received until June of 1992 it is necessary to provide capitalized
interest in the principal amount of the bond issue to pay interest on the bonds from their
dated date. July 1, 1990, through February 1, 1992. Based on current Interest rates it is
anticipated the total capitalized interest for the issue will be $59,500.
Based on the aforementioned, Appendix II is the recommended maturity schedule for the tax
increment bonds. These bonds will be dated July 1, 1990 end mature each February 1 from
1993 through 2000. Columns 1$ show the years and amounts of principal and estimated
interest on the obligations. Column 7 shows the capitalized interest included in the bond
issue and will be used to meet the interest payments through February 1, 1992. Column 9
shows the annual debt service requirement including a five percent overlevy. This overlevy is
a protection to the City and the bondholder in the event 100% of the revenues are not
received. Column 10 is the projection of increment Income based on the completed
estimated value of the property and the current certified original tax capacity rate for the City.
You will note in Column 11 that there is an estimated cumulativo surplus to be generated
throughout this program and a tax levy is not anticipated.
Since the City approved the tax increment financing plan and requested certification of
original value prior to April 30, 1990 the provisions contained in the tax increment financing
plan are not affected by the tax law changes recently enacted by the legislature.
$730,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 19908
The proceeds of this issue will be used to finance the new Improvement costs associated
with the Meadows Second Addition, Phase II project and to refinance the outstanding
principal of the 1983 improvement bonds. The composition of this Issue is set forth in
Appendix III.
The Meadows Second Addition has a total estimated cost of $130,400. It is anticipated that
100% of these costs will be assessed against benefited property with the assessments filed
this year and spread over ten years requiring equal annual payments of principal with
interest charged on the unpaid balance at a rate of approximately 1 1/2% above the bond
rate. For purposes of estimation of assessment Income we have used a rate of 8 1/2% on
the assessments. You will note in the composition of the Issue In Appendix 111 that $35,000 of
project costs will be payable from other sources. In 1989 the City Issued its improvement
bonds to finance various projects and approximately $35,000 still remains as unspent bond
proceeds. It Is the intention of the City to use these unspent proceeds to reduce the
financing requirement of this Issue. Therefore, the assessments that aro spread against
benefited property for the Meadows project should be allocated in the amount of $35,000 to
the 1989 Issue and $95,000 of assossmonts will be attributable to the 1990 Issue.
Appendix IV sots forth the projection of assessment Income assuming $95,400 of project
costs will be attributable and assigned to this bond Issue. Appendix V is the recommended
maturity schedule had this Issue boon financed on Its own and not Incorporated in the
ovorall improvement bonds to be sold.
In May 1983, the City sold Its Improvement bonds in the amount of $1,150,000 for project 82-
2. It was anticipated at the time of issuance that approximately $350,000 of the $900,000
potential assessments may be delinquent for a period of at least Ove years. The maturity
schedule of that Issue was structurod based on that assumption. The anticipation of
delinquent assessments for that Issue have come to reality and those assessments In at
least that amount aro still dolinquont. The bonds outstanding are at a rate of 8.17% and aro
Pago 2 (D
City of Monticello, Minnesota
May 10, 1990
currently eligible for prepayment based on current market conditions. We anticipate those
bonds could be refinanced at a rate of slightly less than seven percent.
In order to meet the differential between assessment income, limited as it is, and the required
debt service, the City has been using a temporary transfer of other available funds of the City
to meet all of the payments. To our knowledge, the City has not levied taxes as yet to cover
these deficiencies. We assume the City makes a careful analysis to assure that such
transfers will not impair the City's ability to meet its ongoing commitments. Since these
payments are made from temporary transfers, the City expects reimbursement of not only the
principal amount o1 the transfer, but also interest accrued at the average rate o1 the City's
investments.
In an effort to provide a smaller need for the amount of City contribution from available funds
and to allow for a potential for restructuring the assessments we have structured a new
refinancing program for all o1 the bonds subject to call. The total amount o1 bonds
outstanding is $620,000. To this we have added $15,000 for associated issuance costs and
allowance for discount bidding. As it is assuned the City may extend the term of the
delinquent assessments in order to facilitate the development of this property, we have
extended the final maturity for the refinancing of this issue to coincide with the maturity
schedule for the Meadows Second Addition financing program. Rather than having a final
maturity to occur in 1996 as currently scheduled, we have extended the final maturity to
2010. Should the term of the assessments not be extended, and the property is either sold
or goes to tax forfeiture, we have provided a call feature in the issue to allow for prepayment.
The restructured financing program appears on Appendix Vi. As with the previous maturity
schedules, Columns 1-7 show the years and amounts of principal and estimated interest due
on these bonds including the Me percent overlevy. Column 8 shows the current debt
service requirement for the 1993 Improvement bonds. Column 9 shows the estimated
cumulative additional costs the City will Incur in refinancing those bonds. Column 10 shows
the annual savings or the reduction in the amounts necessary to be provided to moot actual
debt service requirements. Column 11 shows the cumulative savings or the cumulative net
cash outflow the City would not Incur with the refinancing.
It Is generally not fiscal policy to extend current debt based on vague anticipated generation
of future revenues. Howovor, in view of the fact that there is a distinct probability that
assessments will be forthcoming for this Issuo, we fool It Is prudent for the City to restructure
this Issue In anticipation of those potential rocoipts as wall as to have a financing program in
place in which It can roadily assist a developer in finishing the project and bringing it to its
rightful culmination.
The combined Improvement bond is sot forth in Appondix VII.
Common to Both leauee
Included In the principal amount of each Issue Is a provision for an allowance for discount
bidding. The City has used this morkoting tool In the past and we recommend Its continued
use heroin. The discount provides the underwriters with all or part of their profit and/or
working capital for purchasing the bonds and allows them to rooffor the bonds to the
Investing public at a price close to par. With the inclusion of the allowance for discount
bidding, we anticipate the Interest rates for the bonds will be competitive for other bonds
offered throughout the state.
Pago 3 0
City of Monticello, Minnesota
May 10, 1990
i We recommend you authorize Springsted Incorporated to appy for a rating of these Issues
from Moody's Investors Service of New York. Moody's will charge a fee of approximately
$3.000 for this service and they will bill the City directly. We have provided for this cost as
part of the Issuance costs associated with both issues.
We recommend the bonds maturing on or after February 1, 1997 be subject to payment in
advance of their stated maturity on February 1, 1996 and any date thereafter at a price of par
and accrued Interest. With the Inclusion of the allowance for discount bidding, we do not
feel this aggressive call feature will impair the marketability of the bonds.
We recommend bids be taken on these bonds at our offices on Monday, June 11, 1990 at
1:00 P.M. Subsequent to the receipt of those bids we will tabulate the results and present
them to the City Council for consideration of award at your regularly, scheduled meeting at
7:00 P.M. that same evening. A representative of Springsted will attend the meeting to
provide recommendations as to the acceptability of bids received.
Respectfully submitted,
�SPRINGSTIncor orated
P
mjh
Ce
Page 4 (9
CITY OF MONTICELLO
C; TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT 1.1
(K MART)
COMP0SI110N OF BOND ISSUE
V
Land Acquisition
Public Improvements
Contingencies
Professional Services
Administrative/Issuance
Capitalized Interest
Allowance for Discount
Total Costs
Less Available Funds
Total Bond Issue
$120,000
366,500
3,400
5,000
35,000
59,500
7.000
$5,96,400
$560,000
• Project is expected to be fully on tax rolls as of 1.2.91
• First collection of taxes to be received In 1992
• Lest year of collection 1999
• District approved March 12, 19W
• District Terminates March 12, 2000
• Estimated Tax Capacity at Completion $124,740
Less Original Tax Capacity 2.311
Estimated Captured Tax Capacity $122,429
Original Tax Capacity Rate 81.843%
Estimated Increment Income $100,199
• There is no adjustment factor for the original tax capacity base.
APPENDIX I
Pago 5 /,%
Cl)
CITY OF MONTICELLO,
MINNESOTA
Prepared May 9,
1990
$560,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION
By SPRINGSTED Incorporated
TAX INCREMENT BONDS,
SERIES
1990 A
Bated: 7. 1.1990
Mature: 2. 1
Total Capital-
Net
Projectod
Year of Year of
Principal
ized
Levy
105
Increment
Cumulative
Levy Mat. Principal
Rates
Interest
8 Interest Interest
Required
of Total
Income
Surplus
(1) (2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(9)
(9)
(10)
(11)
1989 1991
0
0.00%
21,660
21,660
22,000
0
0
0
340
1990 1992
0
0.00%
37,132
37,132
37,500
0
0
0
708
1991 1993
55,000
8.25%
37,132
92,132
0
92,132
96,739
100,190
4,159
1992 1994
60,000
0.35%
33,694
93,694
0
93,894
98,379
100,190
5,970
1993 1995
65,000
8.45%
29,884
94,884
0
94,884
99,628
100,190
6,532
1994 1996
70,000
6.55%
25,691
95,691
0
95,691
100,476
100,190
6,246
1995 1997
70,000
6.65%
21,106
91,106
0
91,106
95,661
100,190
10,775
1996 1998
75,000
6.75%
i6,451
91,451
0
91,451
98,024
100,190
14,941
1997 1999
80,000
8.85%
11,388
91,388
0
91,388
95,957
100,190
19,174
1998 2000
85,000
6.95%
5,908
90,908
0
90,908
85,453
100,190
23,911
TOTALS:
560,000
240,046
800,046
59,500
741,254
778,317
801,520
Bond Years: 3,576.67
Annual
Interest:
240,046
Avg. Maturity:
6.39
Plus Discount:
7,000
Avg. Annual Rate:
6.711%
Not Interest:
247,046
N.I.C. Rate:
6.907%
Interest rates are
estimates; changos
may cause
Significant alterations
of this schedule.
m
9 Ino actual undor.ritor'e discount
Old
may also
very.
_
O
tAr
m
o1
C
64
C�
APPENDIX III
CITY OF MONTICELLO
19110 IMPROVEMENT BONDS
COMPUTATION OF ISSUE
Meadows Second Addition, Phase II
Sanitary Sewer
$ 38,000
Water
30,000
Streets
49,400
Storm Sewer
13.000
Subtotal
$130,400
Less Funds Available
(35.0001
Net Required
$ 95,400
Principal Outstanding 1983 Improvement Bonds
620,000
Additional Issuance Costs
5,475
Allowance for Discount
9.125
Total Bond Issue $730,000
Meadows Second Addition, Phase 11 total costs to be assessed by 10.1-90 over ten
years at 1.5% above bond rate or 8.50%. Allocation will be $95,400 to this Issue with
the remaining $35,000 allocated to the I M Issue.
The 1983 Improvement Bonds will be refinanced to take advantage of lower rates
(curron:ly o=standing at 8.17%) and to rostructuro cash flour duo to delinquent
assessment payments.
Page 7 0
CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA Prepared May 9, 1990
MEADOW 2nd ADDITION, PHASE 2 By SPRINGSTED Incorporated
ALLOCATION TO 1990 IMPROVEMENT BONDS
PROJECTED ASSESSMENT INCOME
a) Incluaos interest from tiling
date to 12/31/1991.
m
to
CD
CD
O
J
V�;
a
m
z
0
C
MEADOWS 2nd PHASE
2
Filing
Date: 10/ 1/1990
Filing
Collect
Interest
Year
.....
Year
.......
Principal
.........
@ 8.500%
........
Total
.....
1990
1991
9,540
10,153a
19,693
1991
1992
9,540
7,298
16,838
1992
1993
9,540
6,487
16,027
1993
1994
9,540
5,676
15,216
1994
1995
9,540
4,865
14,405
1995
1996
9,540
4,055
13,595
1996
1997
9,540
3,244
12,784
1997
1998
9,540
2,433
11,973
1998
1999
9,540
1,622
11,162
1999
2000
9,540
811
10,351
TOTALS
95,400
46,644
142,044
a) Incluaos interest from tiling
date to 12/31/1991.
m
to
CD
CD
O
J
V�;
a
m
z
0
C
0
J
CITY OF MONTICELLO,
MINNESOTA
Prepared May 9,
1990
595,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION
By SPRINGSTED Incorporated
IMPROVEMENT BONDS,
MEADOWS ALLOCATION
Dated: 7- 1.1990
Mature: 2- 1
Total
Projected
Cumulative
Year of Year of
Principal
105%
Assessment
Net
Cumulative
Levy Mat. Principal
Rates
Interest
6 Interest of Total
Income
Requirement
Surplus
(1) (2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(6)
(9)
(10)
1989 1991
0
6.15%
3,648
3,646
3,830
0
3,830
0
1990 1992
10,000
6.20%
6,253
16,253
17,066
19,693
0
2,627
1991 1993
10,000
6.25%
5,633
15,633
16,415
16,638
0
3,050
1992 1994
10,000
6.35%
5,008
15,008
15,758
16,027
0
3,319
1993 1995
10,000
6.45%
4,373
14,373
15,092
15,216
0
3,443
1994 1996
10,000
6.55%
3,728
13,728
14,414
14,405
0
3,434
1995 1997
10,000
6.65%
3,073
13,073
13,727
13,595
0
3,302
1996 1998
10,000
6.75%
2,408
12,408
13,028
12,784
0
3,058
1997 1999
10,000
6.85%
1,733
11,733
12,320
11,973
0
2,711
1998 2000
10,000
6.95%
1,048
11,048
11,600
11,162
0
2,273
1999 2001
5,000
7.05%
353
5,353
5,621
10,351
0
7,003
TOTALS:
95,000
37,258
132,258
138,871
142,044
3,630
Bond Years:
555.42
Annual
Interest:
37,258
Avg. Maturity:
5.65
Plus Discount:
1,168
Avg. Annual Rate:
6.708%
Not Interest:
36,446
M.I.C. Rate:
0.922%
Interest rates aro
estimates; changes
may cause
significant alterations
of this schedule.
Tho actual undorvritor*s discount bid
may also
vary.
D
M
M
v
2
�w
t7
m
7i
to
<
D-z
j
CITY OF MONTICELLO,
MINNESOTA
Prepared
May 9,
1990
$635,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION
By SPRINGSTED Incorporated
IMPROVEMENT BONDS,
1983 REFINANCING
Dated: 7- 1.1990
Mature: 2. 1
Total
Current
Cumulative
Year of Year of
Principal
105%
Debt Sery
Net
Annual
Cumulative
Levy Nat. Principal
Rates
Interest
6 Interest
of Total
1983 Imps
Cost
Savings
Savings
(1) (2)
13)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
19)
(10)
(11)
1983 1971
55,000
C.15%
24,404
79,484
83,458
149,657
0
66,199
66,199
1990 1992
45,000
6.20%
38,590
83,590
87,770
165,065
0
77,295
143,494
1991 1993
45,000
6.25%
35,800
80,800
84,840
155,440
0
70,600
214,094
1992 1994
50,000
6.35%
32,987
82,987
87,136
150,440
0
63,304
277,398
1993 1995
50,000
6.45%
29,812
79,812
83,803
64,780
0
0
258,375
1994 1996
55,000
6.55%
28,587
81,587
85,666
65,160
0
0
237,869
1995 1997
60,000
6.65%
22,984
62,984
87,133
0
0
0
150,736
1996 1998
65,000
6.75%
18,994
83,994
88,194
0
0
0
62,542
1997 1999
65,000
6.85%
14,606
79,606
83,586
0
21,044
0
0
1998 2000
70,000
6.95%
10,153
80,153
84,161
0
84,161
0
0
1999 2001
75,000
7.05%
5,288
80,288
84,302
0
84,302
0
0
TOTALS:
635,000
260,285
895,285
940,049
750,542
189,507
Bond Years: 3,845.42
Annual
Interest:
260,285
Avg. Maturity:
6.06
Plus Discount:
7,938
Avg. Annual Roto:
6.769%
Not Interest:
268,223
N.I.C. Rete:
6.975%
Interest rates are
estimates;
changes
may cause
significant alterations
of this Schedule.
The actual underwriter's dlsCount bid
may also
vary,
D
b
9
2
1p
m
t7
Q
0
5
CITYor MONTICELLO. ■Ila4ESOTA
8130.000 OEMEIUL 081 LME ION
IWROVEl9N1 BOWS. 1003 REFINANCING
mud: 1� I -low
Mel urs: 2 1
Prepared Yar 9, 1990
Br SMIN03YED Incorporated
CuNulet Iv
To"'
Nn
IncOY Ratlul-les
(101 111)
149,637 0
164,750 0
112,276 0
160,467 0
10,9M 0
16,503 0
13,595 0
12.7- 0
11,613 77,133
11,162 Be ga
10,351 16,311
692.586 186.324
Annual Cululat TWO
surpina Burp
lue
1171 1191
07.369 02,389
79,07. 147,293
11,07. 713,317
63,513 276.6-
0 251,993
0 237, 948
0 ISa, 214
0 61,711
0 0
0 0
0 0
a•,
m
z
0
foul
Current
Proloct d
Year of Year of
Princ 1peI
IOS\
0a6t herr
aa.aewnt
LerY flat.
Principal Rat ee
Interest
8 Interest
of Total
1963 lope
Inose
111 171
IJI lel
(81
IBI
171
181
191
1989 1991
55,000 6.15%
7.,131
83.131
81.2-
146,857
0
1900 1992
55,000 6.20%
4e, Be7
99.64
194,83.
163.ws
19,093
1991 1993
53,000 6.25\
41,432
96.437
101.7Se
153,440
16.838
1987 1994
60.000 e.36%
31,994
97,994
107.0-
160,440
16,077
1993 IBBO
00,000 6.4311
31,194
94,194
88,093
64,190
15,216
1994 IBBB
65.000 8.65%
J0,J11
95.314
100,080
65.160
u,e05
1995 1Be1
I0.000
26. ase
86,056
100,858
0
13.595
1.96 lege
15,000 6. IS\
21,401
BB,401
lot .271
0
12.194
1997 1980
75,000 6.65%
1.,336
91,330
95,905
0
11,973
1986 2000
so.000 0.95%
11.200
91,700
95.leo
0
11.162
tm 7001
so, 000 7.05%
a.640
65.640
09.922
0
10.351
10 At 9:
130.000
261,537
1,021,632
1.078.610
)00,&47
142.044
Bona Yon:
4,.00.03 Annual
Inbrnt:
787,532
•v9. Usurllr:
6.03 Plus
0l.count:
6.125
Erg. A—. Pate:
0.101\ Net Int
avast:
300,851
N.I.C. Date:
6.9941
Interest rates are sallsates; changei say cause significant
ollenttons
of this schedule.
,:*rest
Yndore ller'a discount 512
YY oleo
vary.
Prepared Yar 9, 1990
Br SMIN03YED Incorporated
CuNulet Iv
To"'
Nn
IncOY Ratlul-les
(101 111)
149,637 0
164,750 0
112,276 0
160,467 0
10,9M 0
16,503 0
13,595 0
12.7- 0
11,613 77,133
11,162 Be ga
10,351 16,311
692.586 186.324
Annual Cululat TWO
surpina Burp
lue
1171 1191
07.369 02,389
79,07. 147,293
11,07. 713,317
63,513 276.6-
0 251,993
0 237, 948
0 ISa, 214
0 61,711
0 0
0 0
0 0
a•,
m
z
0
OFFICIAL TERMS OF OFFERING
$560,000
CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX INCREMENT BONDS, SERIES 1 MA
Sealed bids for the Bonds will be received by the City Administrator or his designee on
Monday, June 11, 1990, until 1:00 P.M., Central Time, at the offices of SPRINGSTED
Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota, after which time they
will be opened and tabulated. Consideration for award of the Bonds will be by the City Council
at 7:00 P.M., Central Time, of the same day.
DETAILS OF THE BONDS
The Bonds will be dated July 1, 1990, as the data of original issue, and will bear interest
payable on February 1 and August 1 of each year, commencing February 1, 1991. Interest will
be computed on the basis of a 360 -day year of twelve 30 -day months and will be rounded
pursuant to rules of the MSRB. The Bonds will be issued In the denomination of $5,000 each,
or in Integral multiples thereof, as requested by the purchaser, and fully registered as to
principal and Interest. Principal will be payable at the main corporate office of the registrar and
interest on each Bond will be payable by check or draft of the registrar mailed to the registered
holder thereof at the holder's address as It appears on the books of the registrar as of the
close of business on the 15th day of the immediatoly, preceding month.
The Bonds will mature February 1 In the years and amounts as follows:
1993 $55,000 1996 $70,000 1999 $80,000
1994 $60,000 1997 $70,000 2000 $85,000
1995 $65,000 1998 $75,000
OPTIONAL REDEMPTION
The City may elect on February 1, 1996, and on any day thereafter, to prepay Bonds duo on or
after February 1, 1997. Redemption may be In whole or in part and If In part, in inverse order of
maturity and within a maturity by lot as solocted by the registrar. All prepayments shall be at a
price of par and accrued Interest.
SECURITY AND PURPOSE
The Bonds will be general obligations of the City for which the City will pledge Its full faith and
credit and power to levy direct general ad valorem taxes. In addition the City will pledge
anticipated increment Income from the City's Tax Increment Financing District No. 1.1. The
procoods will be used to flnanco the public project costs assoclatod with the City's
Development District No. 1 and Tax Increment Financing District No. 1.1.
TYPE OF BID
Bids shall be for not loss than $553,000 and accruod interest on the total principal amount of
the Bonds, and shall be accompanied by a certified or cashior's chock In the amount of $5,560,
payable to the order of the City. No bid will be considered for which said chock has not boon
C received. The City will deposit the chock of the purchasor, the amount of which will be
doductod at sottiomont and no Interest will accrue to the purchaser. In the event the purchaser
fails to comply with the accepted bid, said amount will be rotainod by the City. No bid can be
Pago 12/ � 1
withdrawn after the time set for receiving bids unless the meeting of the City scheduled for
award of the bids is adjourned, recessed, or continued to another date without award of the
Bonds having been made. Rates shall be in integral multiples of 5/100 or 1/8 of 1%. Rates
must be in ascending order. Bonds of the same maturity shall bear a single rate from the date
of the Bonds to the date of maturity. No conditional bid will be accepted.
AWARD
The Bonds will be awarded to the bidder offering the lowest dollar interest cost to be
determined by the deduction o1 the premium, if any, from, or the addition of any amount less
than par, to the total dollar interest on the Bonds from their date to their final scheduled
maturity. The City's computation of the total net dollar interest cost of each bid, in accordance
with customary practice, will be controlling.
The City will reserve the right to: (i) waive non -substantive informalities of any bid or of matters
relating to the receipt of bids and award of the Bonds, (ii) reject all bids without cause, and,
(iii) reject any bid which the City determines to have failed to comply with the terms herein.
REGISTRAR
The City will name the registrar which shall be subject to applicable SEC regulations. The City
will pay for the services of the registrar.
CUSIP NUMBERS
If the Bonds quality for assignment of CUSIP numbers such numbers will be printed on the
Bonds, but neither the failure to print such numbers on any Bond nor any error with respect
thereto will constitute cause for failure or refusal by the purchaser to accept delivery of the
Bonds. The CUSIP Service Bureau charge for the assignment of CUSIP identification numbers
shall be paid by the purchaser.
SETTLEMENT
Within 40 days following the date of their award, the Bonds will be delivered without cost to the
purchaser at a place mutually satisfactory to the City and the purchaser. Delivery will be
subject to receipt by the purchaser of an approving legal opinion of Holmes & Graven,
Chartered of Minneapolis, Minnesota, which opinion will be printed on the Bonds, and of
customary closing papers, Including a no -litigation certificate. On the data of settlement
payment for the Bonds shall be made in federal, or equivalent, funds which shall be received at
the offices of tho City or Its designee not later than 12:00 Noon, Central Time. Except as
compliance with the terms of payment for the Bonds shall have been made Impossible by
action of the City, or Its agents, the purchaser shall be liable to the Cly for any loss suffered by
the City by reasons of the purchaser's noncompliance with said forms for payment.
OFFICIAL STATEMENT
The City has authorized the preparation of an Official Statement containing pertinent
information relative to the Bonds, and said Official Statement will serve as a noarly-final Official
Statement as required by Rule 15c2.12 of the Securities and Exchango Commission. For
copies of the Official Statement and the Official Bid Form or for any additional information prior
to sato, any prospective purchaser Is referred to the Financial Advisor to the City, Springstod
Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101, telephone
C (612) 223.3000.
The Official Statement, when further supplemented by an addondum or addenda spocitying the
maturity datos, principal amounts and Interest rates of the Bonds, together with any other
Pago 13 n9
information required by law, shall constitute a'Final Official Statemenr of the City with respect
to the Bonds, as that term is defined in Rule 15c2-12. By awarding the Bonds to any
-� underwriter or underwriting syndicate submitting an Official Bid Form therefor, the City agrees
that, no more than seven business days after the date of such award, it shall provide without
cost to the senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Bonds are awarded 25
copies of the Official Statement and the addendum or addenda described above. The City
designates the senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Bonds are awarded
as its agent for purposes of distributing copies of the Final Official Statement to each
Participating Underwriter. Any underwriter executing and delivering an Official Bid Form with
respect to the Bonds agrees thereby that H its bid is accepted by the City (i) it shall accept such
designation and (ii) H shall enter into a contractual relationship with all Participating
Underwriters of the Bonds for purposes of assuring the receipt by each such Participating
Underwriter of the Final Official Statement.
01
0
Dated May 14, 1990 BY ORDER OF THE CrTY COUNCIL
/s/ Rick Wolfsteller
Administrator
Pago 14 /t
OFFICIAL TERMS OF OFFERING
$730,000
CITY OF MONTICELLO. MINNESOTA
GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 19908
Sealed bids for the Bonds will be received by the City Administrator or his designee on
Monday, June 11, 1990, until 1:00 P.M., Central Time, at the offices o1 SPRINGSTED
Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota, after which time they
will be opened and tabulated. Consideration for award of the Bonds will be by the City Council
at 7:00 P.M., Central Time, of the same day.
DETAILS OF THE BONDS
The Bonds will be dated July 1, 1990, as the date of original Issue, and will bear interest
payable on February 1 and August 1 of each year, commencing February 1, 1991. Interest will
be computed on the basis of a 360 -day year of twelve 30day months and will be rounded
pursuant to rules of the MSRB. The Bonds will be issued in the denomination of $5,000 each,
or in integral multiples thereof, as requested by the purchaser, and fully registered as to
principal and interest. Principal will be payable at the main corporate office of the registrar and
interest on each Bond will be payable by check or draft of the registrar mailed to the registered
holder thereof at the holder's address as it appears on the books of the registrar as of the
close of business on the 15th day of the immediately preceding month.
The Bonds will mature FPhruery 1 in the yeefs end errTunls Ps !T!!0 ?:
C 1991 $55,000 1995 $60,000 1999 $75,000
1992 $55,000 1996 $65,000 2000 $80.000
1993 $55,000 1997 $70,000 2001 $80,000
1994 $60,000 1998 $75,000
OPTIONAL REDEMPTION
The City may elect on February 1, 1996, and on any day thereafter, to prepay Bonds duo on or
after February 1, 1997. Redemption may be In whole or In part and if In part, in inverse order of
maturity and within a maturity by lot as selected by the registrar. All prepayments shall be at a
price of par and accrued interest.
SECURITY AND PURPOSE
The Bonds will be general obligations of the City for which the City will plodgo Its full faith and
credit and power to levy direct general ad valorem taxes. In addition the City will plodgo
special assessments against benefited property. The proceeds will be used to finance the
construction of improvements In the City and to refund all outstanding maturities of the City's
$1,150,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1983, dated Juno 1, 1983.
TYPE OF BID
Bids shall be for not loss than $720,875 and accruod Interest on the total principal amount of
the Bonds, and shall be accompanied by a certified or cashier's check In the amount of $7,300,
payable to the order of the City. No bid will be considered for which said chock has not boon
received. The City will doposit the chock o1 the purchaser, the amount of which will be
deducted at settlement and no Interest will accrue to the purchaser. In the event the purchaser
Pago 15 (9
fails to comply with the accepted bid, said amount will be retained by the City. No bid can be
withdrawn after the time set for receiving bids unless the meeting of the City scheduled for
award of the bids is adjourned, recessed, or continued to another date without award of the
Bonds having been made. Rates shall be in integral multiples of 5/100 or 1/8 of 1%. Rates
must be in ascending order. Bonds of the same maturity shall boar a single rate from the date
of the Bonds to the date of maturity. No conditional bid will be accepted.
AWARD
The Bonds will be awarded to the bidder offering the lowest dollar interest cost to be
determined by the deduction of the premium, if any, from, or the addition of any amount less
than par, to the total dollar interest on the Bonds from their date to their final scheduled
maturity. The City's computation of the total net dollar interest cost of each bid, in accordance
with customary practice, will be controlling.
The City will reserve the right to: (i) waive non -substantive informalities of any bid or of matters
relating to the receipt of bids and award of the Bonds, (ii) reject all bids without cause, and,
(iii) reject any bid which the City determines to have failed to comply with the terms herein.
REGISTRAR
The City will name the registrar which shall be subject to applicable SEC regulations. The City
will pay for the services of the registrar.
CUSIP NUMBERS
If the Bonds quality for assignment of CUSIP numbers such numbers will be printed on the
Bonds, but neither the failure to print such numbers on any Bond nor any error with respect
thereto will constitute cause for failure or refusal by the purchaser to accept delivery of the
Bonds. The CUSIP Service Bureau charge for the assignment of CUSIP identification numbers
shall be paid by the purchaser.
SETTLEMENT
Within 40 days following the date of their award, the Bonds will be delivered without cost to the
purchaser at a place mutually satisfactory to the City and the purchaser. Delivery will be
subject to receipt by the purchaser of an approving legal opinion of Holmes & Graven,
Chartered of Minneapolis, Minnesota, which opinion will be printed on the Bonds, and of
customary closing papers, including a no -litigation certificate. On the date of settlement
payment for the Bonds shall be made in federal, or equivalent, funds which shall be received at
the ofncos of the City or Its designee not later than 12:00 Noon, Central Time. Except as
compliance with the forms of payment for the Bonds shall have boon made impossible by
action of the City, or its agents, the purchasor shall be liable to tho City for any loss sufforod by
the City by reasons of the purchaser's non-compllanco with said terms for payment.
OFFICIAL STATEMENT
Tho City has authorized the preparation of an Official Statement containing pertinent
information rolatNe to the Bonds, and said Official Statement will serve as a noorly-final Official
Statomont as required by Rule 15c2.12 of the Socuritios and Exchange Commission. For
copios of the Official Statement and the Official Bid Form or for any additional information prior
to safe, any prospoctive purchaser Is roforrod to the Financial Advisor to the City, Springstod
C Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101, telephone
(812) 223-3000.
Pago 16 0
C/
The Official Statement, when further supplemented by an addendum or addenda specifying the
maturity dates, principal amounts and interest rates of the Bonds, together with any other
information required by law, shall constitute a 'Final Official Statement* of the City with respell
to the Bonds, as that term Is defined In Rule 15c2.12. By awarding the Bonds to any
underwritor or underwrlUng syndicate submitting an Official Bid Form therefor, the City agrees
that, no more than seven business days after the date of such award, it shall provide without
cost to the senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Bonds are awarded 30
copies of the Official Statement and the addendum or addenda described above. The City
designates the senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Bonds are awarded
as its agent for purposes of distributing copies of the Final Official Statement to each
Participating Underwriter. Any underwriter executing and delivering an Official Bid Form with
respect to the Bonds agrees thereby that if Its bid is accepted by the City (i) it shall accept such
designation and (ii) it shall enter Into a contractual relationship with all Participating
Underwriters of the Bonds for purposes of assuring the receipt by each such Participating
Underwriter of the Final Official Statement.
Dated May 14,19W @v ORDER OF THE CrrY COUNCIL
/s/ Rick Woffsteller
Administrator
Pego 17
Council Agenda - 5/14/90
Consideration of adopting ordinance amendment which would
allow operation of a prototype furnace using rubber products
as fuel in an I-1 zone. (J.O.)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission will be conducting a public heariny
regarding this matter immediately prior to City Council
consideration of the proposed amendment (5:30 PM).
Recouunendations made by the Planning Commission will be
reported to Council during the Council presentation. This
memo is addressed to both the Council find to the Planning
Commission.
Planning Commission/Council is asked to consider amending the
list of conditional uses allowed in the I-1 zone by adding the
"operation of a prototype furnace using rubber products as
fuel." Following is a review of this planning case along with
comments already made by Council.
Ray Schmidt of Universal Equipment Manufacturing Company hopes
to occupy the structure that has now been vacated by Larson
Manufacturing. Schmidt has placed earnest money down in
anticipation of purchasing the structure; however, he will not
complete the purchase until the City reviews his operational
plans which include the operation and development of a
prototype furnace which uses automobile tire rubber as fuel.
The furnace proposed for development and installation is not
an incinerator. In other words, the furnace is designed to
use tires in heating the structure and is not intended to be
designed for the sole purpose of incinerating tires. This
furnace is one among other machines that Schmidt manufactures
that are designed to transform waste tires into materials that
can be reused for other purposes. A video will be presented
at the Planning Commission meeting which shows various tire
reduction products in operation.
In addition to the rubber burning furnace, Schmidt also has
developed machinery that will remove tires from wheels,
machinery that cuts tires into manageable pieces, and then
reduces the manageable pieces further into tire bits which can
be used for many purposes, including furnace fuel. The
equipment that Schmidt has designed is relatively inexpensive
and is intended to be used by small scale tire reducing
operations. Schmidt believes that the typo of equipment that
he is manufacturing will create an affordable process by which
tiros can be converted into a product that can be roused.
As many as 20 jobs may be created with the enterprise as
proposed by Schmidt. In talking to Larson Manufacturing, it is
my understanding that Bridge Water Tolophono is waiting in the
wings to purchase the Structure if Schmidt does not receive
City approval. The same source indicated that Bridge water
Telephone plans to use the structure primarily for warehouse
use, and it is anticipated that very few jobs will be created
by such use.
Council Agenda - 5/14/90
LAND USE ZONING ISSUES
Under the present zoning ordinance, the type of manufacturing
and assembly of equipment proposed by Schmidt is an allowable
use in the I-1 zone; therefore, under normal circumstances,
Schmidt would need no permit whatsoever to occupy the Larson
Manufacturing structure and begin his operation. This
situation, of course, is unusual because one of Schmidt's
product lines is a furnace which utilizes rubber as its fuel.
The furnace is a prototype model and is untested at this time;
therefore, it appears unwise to allow the operation to begin
without an environmental Impact review and subsequent
regulations. At the same time, however, the furnace does
appear to burn very cleanly. It may be that operation of a
single furnace utilizing rubber chips as Its fuel may not
create a negative impact on the adjoining properties. To
assist the City in providing answers to our questions
regarding the impact of this furnace on adjoining properties,
City staff has requested that the PCA review the operation of
this furnace and provide the City with information or
direction regarding this matter. Attached you will find a
letter from Gary Standish of the Pollution Control Agency
which outlines the pro's and con's associated with the
operation of this furnace.
This item was addressed on an informal basis by City Council
at the previous Council meeting. In response to the
information provided, Council said it would consider allowing
the furnace to operate on a limited controlled scale until it
is tested and approved. The furnace would not be allowed to
operate if the furnace tailed to meet PCA guidelines. Ray
Schmidt indicated that such a condition or conditions would be
acceptable. other conditions were also discussed and are
listed in the proposed ordinance amendment.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve ordinance amendment establishing
operation of a prototype rubber burning furnace
Incidental to principal use as a conditional use in an
I-1 zone provided that:
1. Furnace must moot all existing or future air
omission standards as established by federal or
state pollution control agencies.
2. Stack height must be high enough to eliminate
potential of stack gases being trapped at ground
level by the effect of wind flow around buildings.
3. Before 9/1/90, furnace owner will complete all
omissions tooting on prototype furnace and will
T apply for an air emission permit from the PCA even
If exempt from PCA regulations. Furnace design
must moot or exceed proportional requirements for a
I million BTU furnace as required by the PCA.
15
Council Agenda - 5/14/90
Failure of emission tests during prototype
development, or failure to obtain permission to
sell this product in Minnesota shall terminate
conditional uae permit.
4. Regular use of the furnace shall be limited to the
heating season. Non -heating season use of the
system shall be limited to testing and
demonstration. Furnace shall not be operated for
the sole purpose of reducing waste tires.
5. A 6 -foot 90% opaque fence shall be used to screen
waste tire storage areas. No waste tires shall be
in plain view. The site may not contain more than
75 unprocessed tires at any one time. The site may
not be used as a tire transfer station.
6. Complaints made by area property owners about the
furnace emissions may be sufficient cause for the
City to withdraw the conditional use permit and
therefore halt furnace operation.
7. waste ash and particulate recovered shall be
treated as hazardous waste and shall be disposed of
in a manner approved by the City of Monticello and
the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
a. Motion based on the finding that the amendment
is consistent with geography and character of
the industrial setting.
b. Issuance and enforcement of the conditional
use permit will not tend to depreciate the
value of adjoining properties.
C. The need for the use has been sufficiently
demonstrated.
d. The conditional use permit is consistent with
the comprehensive plan.
Planning Commission/Council could tako the position that
given the strict conditions noted above, it Is likely
that the amendment is consistent with the zoning
ordinance amendment requirements above.
Under the plan above, Schmidt assumes all of the risk
associated with installation and operation of the
furnace. It is incumbent upon Schmidt to operate
efficiently and cleanly or face immediate possibility of
termination of the conditional use permit.
Motion to deny approval of ordinance amendment
establishing operation of a prototype rubber burning
furnace Incidental to principal use as a conditional use
in an I-1 zone provided that the operation of said
furnace is not consistent with A, B, C, and D in
alternative 01 above.
16
Council Agenda - 5/14/90
Despite the safeguards provided by the conditions,
Planning Commission/Council could take the position that
the furnace is untested and unregulated, and the City
should not allow operation of the unit until it is
formally tested and approved. Only until such testing is
complete would the City be assured that the furnace
emissions would not negatively affect adjoining land
owners.
Furthermore, it should be noted that the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency may not have the resources to
assist the City in monitoring or policing this type of
operation. The City, for the most part, will be on its
own in terms of regulating this type of use.
SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of proposed ordinance amendment; Comments from the
Pollution Control Agency; Letter to the Pollution Control
Agency requesting information; If time allows, a video
presentation showing operation of equipment manufactured by
Schmidt will be presented.
U
Proposed
Ordinance:
H. Prototype rubber burning furnace incidental to principle
use
provided that:
�w 1.
Furnace must meet all existing or future air
emission standards as established by Federal or
L
State pollution control agencies.
1� ipV2.
Stack height must be high enough to eliminate
potential of stack gases being trapped at ground
level by the effect of wind flow around buildings.
3.
Before (9/1/90) furnace owner will complete all
emissions testing on prototype furnace and will
apply for an air emission permit from the PCA even
if exempt from PCA regulations. Furnace design
must meet or exceed proportional requirements for a
1 million BTU furnace as required by the PCA.
Failure of emission tests during prototype
development, or failure to obtain permission to
sell this product in Minnesota shall terminate
conditional use permit.
4.
Regular use of the furnace shall be limited to the
heating season. Non -heating season use of the
system shall be limited to testing and
demonstration. Furnace shall not not be operated
for the sole purpose of reducing waste tires.
5.
A 6 foot 90% opaque fence shall be used to screen
waste tire storago areas. No waste tires shall be
in plain view.
6.
Complaints made by area property owners about the
furnace emissions may be sufficient cause for the
City to withdraw the condltlonl use permit and
thorofore halt furnace operation.
r,
7.
waste ash and particulate recovered, shall be
treated as hazardous waste and shall be disposed of
In a manner approved by the City of Monticello and
the MN Pollution Control Agency.
1,
V,
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road. Saint Paul. Minnesota 55155 p�
Telephone (612) 296-6300 `�
4
April 20, 1990
Mr. Jeff O'Neill
Assistant AchninisLrator
City of Monticello
250 Fast Broadway
I,bnticello, Minnesota 55362-92.45
hear Mr. O'Neill
111e following letter will respond to your lrxluiry dated April 9,1990 legarditly
the poLenUal developrtenL of a facility by Lie Tire Service rtltrilttent
Manufacturing ColIpany iticotpmaLed. 'lite contents LepresenL the views of the
Waste Tire ManatymnenL Program alit Lin Divison of Ai.r QjaliLy leased on
information provided to our. office.
'Ib pnyvide answers to t11e City of M)nticello's questions, we will start with
question no. 3, "is a state or federal pormiL LWIlred 7"
Minn. Rules part 7001.1210 l+tovidos that a f:ac:AILLY whose only air orni.ssiuns are
flan ccndetsLiun 01' a solid fuel, And wltuse Lute[ rated InaL inl.lul is less Uuau I
10111011 IVIU l:er Ixxn-, is exalgjt: from tine valttirment. to obtain an air emission
lnnniL. Fm4n t.lr± picturo alrl dnl.a pnwilh.l, the 111111 nigtN,irs LQ 1.+ m1Y'lll clxJuyh
Lu Ix: 0xrnq�t. Wu Wit I use. n I nd 1 I toilISIU Int- Haar Milt with rxj IrA ltiLion
control alui.l.menL as tin basis for the other ginsLi.olul.
N). 1. WIv1L tyln of air rinissions--parLicu.lnLe, gaseous, or otherwise-- earl W
expected fruit Lill stock alxl whit grlanLILy could bo pi.-xtuced 7
ILAsed on Lire mtnylses and test hurns,tire ccndiusLion can he exlecLed to
anLL ixv-LlculaLes, carWn nunoxide, sulfor dioxido, and niLnx9en oxides.
Inca gA01.0 CrAdAISLlun could nesulL ill an unpredictable vat:ieLy of
urgnnic emit cl uxls and u1M11'. A I Illi I I iun 1!111/Ix,xu' unl1. axrld Ixn'11
n19)rnx1m-lLQIy IUU tons of Lire chills in a fleeting seas(-mn. Lltti.aslons nee
caLlmiLled to bot
lintAculnt.es
2.9 HAP.)ur
4.4 Lon/IteaLIny seasun
Cnrl:run m3lnxido
2.6 11?/Ix:,w•
3.9 t.011/11a'1tiny soasun
Sulfur Oloxick)
7..0 Ib/Ikxu'
3.0 ton/henLitly sensun
N1LLZ1gc11 Oxides
1.2 Ib/10th
1.0 tort/Inatiny Season
Regional Offices:
Duluth • Brainard • Dolroll Lakes • Marshall • Rochester
Equal Opponunlly Empbyor
Printod an R ocyclod Popor
a
Mr. Jeff O'Neill
Page 2
No. 2. Wuuld Lite MCA require furnace tergrerature regulation, electrostatic
precipitions,or bag houses for particulates in the future 7
Ile 2.9 113/hour. emission rate for particulates could be considered to
exceed an applicable Minn. Ai.r Pollution Control Staoxlerd currently in
effect. Tlx: rale should le 0.4 Ib/Irour fur- a 1 million Iift1/Inour unit to
curgply with Lire role. '19111s, srnre type of dust collector aj-tears to lie
rvx:essary fruit Lire start. Rules for waste incineration are under
development and my apply in the future.
No. 4. Will the operation of Lie Lire burning furnace at Lie scale as described
create a bona fide in]IuLion problen for nelghborfng property udners 7
Ilds would not necessarily occur. Good design and operation might result
in stack emissions which ace onuL visible arxl produce no grvurxl level udur
or excessive concentrations of pollul.nnts. Sufficient sLack helyhL is
irrgorLanL to avoid Lire sLack gases being trapped at grvwxl level by Lire
effect of wind flow around buildings.
Mi. 5. Can LI>P furnace manufncLur._rl nL this site be sold in Minnesota 7 If noL,
w147L' tests rmost the furnace Lass before i1. can be sold statewide 7 When are you
planning on Lest.ing Lin oLeraLion of Lite furnace,and if you already have, wiaL
were Cite resulLs of Lire Lest 7
'Ile sale of Llp furnace is not- reyulaLed by nny Minn. PvlluLi.un CunLrol
/klerx:y rules, lalL MLlnc Lire oleraLlon or use of. Line furnace. If na
lateral regulal.iuns nlq,ly to Lhis furnace, Llner:e is ono nvuklaLory Lestinrg
raiuirvrr_nL. MjsL lnerpar new solaces are vc%*Hrerl to Lest oni.ss.i.ons
within sate Line frwrn nfLor. nLarLup. 'Mis soutc0-spOcific LesL.lnly is
llkely to Ix3 prohl.bltively expensive fur wilts of this size. (Tre
nlgnronch, used by U.S. EPA to regulate wood -burning slaves, Is to require
Ll a minul.acLurer to Lest unx, uni.L out of every 100 manufnclured. 'Igp
nunuinclurer receives it letter of ccagrlinr"x tivnt rvnains effecl..i.ve so
long its each unit LesLed I"Bases Its Lest. Ile- MICA does not perform Lite
testing. 'Ignn:e are rnmrrcnrs Lest.itwj consult.arnts In Minnesota slid
olscwhere in Lo U.S. to provirlo Lhis service.
No. 6. Can Llso furavnce be sold In Other 01.01.08 7
SLALO regulnLiuns vary widely noxi chnn(r. I'M-quenlly enough Llunl this must
1..o answ3l.vd Pry each st.OLO.
W. 7. 7b what extent should thno city limit Lite use of Lite furrwuce at tlp
rrnnufacLuring site 7 and
N). 0. Mint cunx111.ionn Of olcrat.lon wuuld you eugc,Ir:st LInnL Lino CjLy
placo on Lite proposed opreraLlon 7
If n conditional use I.enult., building pelmlt, or eller clLy Iaetmil. is
r:oiulrod, ore alVrvach would be Lu royul.re Lin facillty Lunar to apply
Mr. Jeff O'Neill
Page 3
for an air emission permit from the MPCA even if exempt. 7bie permit we
would issue would list all applicable air pollution control standards.
7bie stack height slwuld be required to be high enough to avoid the
problem described in No. 4 above. 79x3 use of the furnace could be
limited to the heating season.
The interest in waste tire recycling and potential level of equipment
manufacturing for waste tire reduction, as represented by this capeu:y, are
encouraging to our p:cxgram. if you have questions or require additional
L:formation please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely, A
�y / a A// �
ry Standish w/ Qw�/',
llution Control Specilist
Waste Tire Management Unit
Site Response Section
Ground Water and Solid Waste Division
GSikn
Enclosure
cc: Wes Sprunk
April 9, 1990
2501?ast Ikaadsvny
Monticello, MN 55362.9245
Phone: (612) 295.2711
Metro: (612) 333.5739
Mr. Gary SLandlsh
F
{-.,rh Mnur
MinnesotaPollution Control Agency
u ati"d
520 LafayeLLe Road
un,r f3lnnrgrn
St. Paul, MN 55155
F"n Ni,
v,oleynndronn
Dear Mr. Standish:
IY'nrrrn Smit,
^''"""""""'
The C1Ly of Monticello seeks your input regarding Lite
Itnh nrrgr"Ihr
po Lenl.lal deve.lopmenL of a facility LhaL proposes Lo
"""'""'"'rw,.,.,, ,,,
manuf.acLure automobile Lire reducing equipment. The
9
IH'Nedl
location of Lite facility is not a problem, as Lite site
r,,r.,,,u.,•,,.
Is zoned for this type of manufacturing; however, a
JA Snn.rI"
unique situation has developed Ln that Included among
n„n•n,n r
Lite ILoms to be manufactured at. LIYis aIle In furnace
„.n„h•,.,^
e,.lul.pmonL that: uses auLomob.11e Lire chips as 1.1101.
n„�,.,,,.•
There is a concern that operotlon of such a furnace ur
10i'^°^It°h
furnaces might neyaLively affect. air quality and
ad)olnLny properties.
The facility an proposed would operate a Lire fueled
furnace for Lite following purposes:
1. A Lire fueled furnace would be used to heal Lite
sU'ucLure In which Lite manufacLur-Ing is
conducLod. The furnace would be the ongoing
primary source of heal. for Lite structure.
2. In addition to Lite furnace being used to heat Lire
structure, Mr. Schmidt' would also operate nn
nddlLlunal furnace or furnaces on on experlmenLn.l
basis for Lite purpose of product developinont.
The City of Monticello understands Lhe ImporLance of.
Lire reduct.lon and recycling, and the City also sees
Lite ecunomlc dovolupmonL poLenLlal associated with
mnnufneLuriny of Lire reduction oquJpmenl. At Lite
nnmo Lima, however., the C1Ly Is ohllgnLed to proLecL
Lite JnLeresLs and land values of existing property
owners. The City noodn to determine to what extent
0
Mr. Gary Standish
April 9, 1990
Page 2
will the presence of Lite the burning furnace or furnaces be
detrimental to Lite adjoining properties. Please assist the City of
Monticello by offering answers to Lite following quesLlons:
1. What type of air emissions --particulate, gaseous, or
otherwise --can be expected from Lite stack and in what quantity
could they be produced?
2. Would Lite MPCA require furnace temperature regulation,
electrostatic preclplCaLions, or bag houses for particulates
In the future?
7. Is a state or federal permit required?
4. Will Lite operation of. the tire burning furnace at Lite scale as
described create a bona fide pollution problem for neighboring
property owners?
5. Can Lite furnace manufactured at Lhls site be sold In
Minnesota? If not, what tests must Lite furnace pass before It
can be sold sLnCe wide? When are you planning on LesLing Lite
operation of. Lite furnace, and if you already have, what were
Lite resulLs of Lite test?
G. Can the furnace be sold In other states?
7. To what extent should Lite City limit Lite use of Lite furnace at
the manufacturing alto?
0. What general conditions of operation would you suggost that
Lite City place on Lite proposed operation?
Thank you for addressing the questions listed above or. forwarding
Lite questions to the appropriate party. I look forward to your
response.
Yours truly,
CITY OF MONNT1C�IiLLLO
Jeff O'Nolll
Assistant Administrator
JO/kd
cc: Flirt
Council Agenda - 5/14/90
tt. Consideration of conditional use permit which would allow
operation of prototype furnace usinq rubber products as fuel.
(J.O.)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
A special meeting of the Planning Commision has been scheduled
for 5:30 p.m., May 14, 1990, at which time a public hearing
will be held on this matter. Planning Commission
recommendation will be reported verbally to the City Council
when Council addresses this item at its regular meeting later
on the same day.
If the Planning Commission/Council approves the related zoning
ordinance amendment, then the awarding of the conditional use
permit to Universal Equipment Manufacturing Company (UEMC)
should be considered. It is my understanding based on
Schmidt's comments at the previous meeting that his company is
willing to comply with all of the conditions listed; however,
this should be reaffirmed at the meeting on May 14, 1990.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Motion to approve issuance of conditional use permit
allowing operation of prototype furnace using rubber
products as fuel subject to the following conditions and
any other conditions that the Planning Commission/Council
might add:
1. Furnace must meet all existing or future air
omission standards as established by federal or
state pollution control agencies.
2. Stack height must be high enough to eliminate
potential of stack gases being trapped at ground
level by the effect of wind flow around buildings.
3. Before 9/1/90, furnace owner will complete all
emissions testing on prototype furnace and will
apply for an air emission permit from the PCA even
If exempt from PCA regulations. Furnace design
must moot or exceed proportional requirements for a
1 million BTU furnace as required by the PCA.
Failure of emission tests during prototype
development or failure to obtain permission to Boll
this product in Minnesota shall terminate
conditional use permit.
4. Regular use of the furnace shall be limited to the
heating season. Non-hoating season use of the
system shall be limited to testing and
demonstration. Furnace shall not be operated for
the Bole purpose of reducing waste tiros.
18
Council Agenda - 5/14/90
5. A 6 -foot 90% opaque fence shall be used to screen
waste tire storage areas. No waste tires shall be
in plain view. The site may not contain more than
75 unprocessed tires at any one time. The site may
not be used as a tire transfer station.
6. Complaints made by area property owners about the
furnace emissions may be sufficient cause for the
City to withdraw the conditional use permit and
therefore halt furnace operation.
7. Waste ash and particulate recovered shall be
treated as hazardous waste and shall be disposed of
in a manner approved by the City of Monticello and
the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
This alternative should be selected if Planning
Commission approves related zoning ordinance amendment.
Approval based on the finding that the operation of the
furnace as regulated is:
a. Consistent with the geography and character of the
I-1 and I-2 zone.
!� b. The operation of the furnace will not tend to
depreciate the area and the land values in the
area.
c. The need for the use has been sufficiently
demonstrated.
2. Motion to deny said conditional use permit.
This alternative should be selected if the applicant is
unwilling to meet any additional conditions developed by
the Planning Commission/Council.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
If the Planning Commission/Council approves the zoning
amendment, and if the applicant is willing to comply with all
of the conditions listed, staff recommends that the City award
said conditional use permit.
D. SUPPORTING DATA: A
Soo previous agenda item.
19
Council Agenda - 5/14/90
12. Consideration of a resolution awarding bids for Project 90-03,
street and utility improvements for the Meadows 2nd Addition,
phase II. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At a previous meeting, the City Council authorized
advertisement for bids for street and utility construction on
Crocus Lane and Crocus Circle in the Meadows 2nd Addition.
The bids were due on Friday, May 11, at 11:00 a.m. The
feasibility study prepared by Orr-Schelen-Mayeron 6 Associates
gave an estimated construction cost of 499,970. By adding a
5% contingency and 249 legal, engineering, administration, and
financial cost, the total project is expected to cost
$130,000.
On Friday, May 11, seven bids were received for the project.
The apparent low bidder at this time without verification of
the bids is Redstone Construction of Mora, Minnesota. A copy
of the bid tabulation is enclosed for your review. The City
Engineer will be verifying bids and checking references and
have his recommendation ready for Monday evening's meeting.
At the same time, we will be meeting with the owners of the
project to see if the bids are in line with their
expectations.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative is to award the project to the
lowest responsible bidder as recommended by the City
Engineer.
2. The second alternative is not to award the project.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
The staff withholds its recommendation until the City Engineer
has had time to check the bids and references of the low
bidder and we have had timo to discuss the proposed costs with
the owners of the Meadows. We should have a recommendation
available for Monday evening's meeting.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the bid tabulation; Copy of resolution for adoption.
C N 1
20
BID TABULATION
FOR
STREET A UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS & APPURTENANT WORK
THE MEADOWS AND THE MEADOWS 2ND ADDITION
CITY PROJECT NUMBER 90-03
CITY OF MONTICELLO
BIDS OPENEDt May 11, 1990 ORit SCHELEN MAYBRON
11:00 A.M. i ASSOCIATES, INC.
ADDENDUM
CONTRACTOR NOTED BID SECURITY TOTAL BID
Annadale Const. X 5% Bond $83.209.24
A--111— MN
B 6 D Underground X 52 Bond $94,018.00
Mound, MN
Kadlec Excavating X 51 Bond $94,901.77
Morn, MN
Lntour Const. X 5% Bond $86,958.40
Maple Lake, MN
Randy Krnmer Exc. X 5% Bond $89,035.55
Wntkins, MN
Redstone Const. X 5% Road $81,899.55
Morn, MN
R. L. Lnroon Exc. X 5% Bond $83.910.43
St. Cloud, MN
•Donotoo Corrected Figure
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS
A TRUE AND CORRECT TABULATION
OF THE BIDS AS RECEIVED ON:
DATE KA JL 1990
BY _-Bent A.- Weiee
OSM Comm. No. 0876.00
0
RESOLUTION 90 -
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AUTHORIZING CONTRACT
WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the Improvement
of Crocus Lane and Crocus Circle within the Meadows Second Addition
with sanitary sewer, water main, storm sewer, bituminous streets,
curb and gutter, and appurtenant work, bids were received, opened,
and tabulated according to law, and the following bids were
received complying with the advertisement:
WHEREAS, it appears that is the
lowest responsible bidder,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO,
MINNESOTA:
l- 1. The Mayor and City Administrator are hereby authorized and
directed to enter Into the attached contract with
In the name of the City of
Monticello for the improvement of Crocus Lane and Crocus
Circle within the Meadows Second Addition with sanitary sewer,
water main, storm sewer, bituminous streets, curb and gutter,
and appurtenant work. According to the plans and
specifications approved by the City Council and on file In the
office of the City Administrator.
2. The City Administrator. In hereby authorized and directed to
return forthwith to all bidders the deposit made w]Lh their
bids, except that tho deposits of the successful bidder and
the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has
boon signed.
Adopted by the City Council this 14th day of May, 1990.
Mayor
City Administrator
(S)
Council Agenda - 5/14/90
13. Consideration of accepting appraisal for park dedication
purposes --West Prairie Partners plat. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
In November of 1989, the Council approved the final plat of
the West Prairie Partners' subdivision with the only item left
to complete being the park dedication fee required by
ordinance. The developers proposed making a cash contribution
rather than a land donation; and based on their letter of
May 4, 1989, they proposed a cash contribution of $1,700 based
on a market value of $17,000 that they arrived at by
subtracting the values of parcels they sold to arrive at the
raw land being platted. Because of the unusual circumstances
surrounding this remaining 2-1/2 acre parcel, the Council in
November voted in a split decision to require the developer to
get an appraisal of the property to substantiate the value.
In January of 1990, the developers presented City staff with
information that the Wright County Assessor's Office was going
to value the property at $17,200 for tax purposes, and the
developers indicated a desire to use this valuation for park
dedication purposes. I believe I asked the Council whether
this would be acceptable as a solution to this problem, and
the opinion of the Council was to still require an actual
appraisal. On January 5, 1990, Mr. Jim Metcalf, a partner in
the development, submitted a letter from Mr. Dan Goeman of
Goeman Realty who supported the valuation of the property at
$12,000. This valuation supplied by Mr. Goeman indicated that
It was a personal opinion rather than a formal appraisal due
to his previous involvement in the West Prairie Partners/
Baptist Church transaction. I had informed Mr. Metcalf that
the Council's decision was to request a formal appraisal and
that I did not feel the opinion expressed by the realtor, Dan
Goeman, would be sufficient.
Again in April of 1990, the developers referred to their 1990
tax statement that listed the valuation at $17,200 and
Inquired as to whether this again would be acceptable. I
again informed the dovolopere of the Council's requost for a
formal appraisal, and I received another letter from Dan
Goeman of Goeman Realty indicating that it was his appraisal
that the value of the property was $12,000.
Since this item has been going on for almost a year, two
offers have been made regarding the park dedication fee, one
from the developers initially accepting the County Assessor's
valuation of $17,200 as the appropriate value, and now another
Council Agenda - 5/14/90
committing only to the $12,000 figure. The question becomes,
is the Council willing to accept Mr. Goeman's opinion/
appraisal of $12,000 as meeting the requirements of our
ordinance? Or does the City Council still wish to have a
formal appraisal presented by a certified appraiser? Although
Mr. Goeman's letter of May 1 is titled an appraisal, I am not
sure if Mr. Goeman is a certified real estate appraiser or if
it is the requirement of the Council to be one.
I
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Council could accept the appraisal submitted by
Mr. Goeman which establishes the value at $12,000 for a
park dedication fee of $1,200.
The Council could accept the County Assessor's valuation
for 1990 taxes at $17,200, which would result in a $1,720
park dedication fee.
The Council could require an appraisal of the property by
a third party independent of the original transaction and
certified to do appraisals according to accepted
standards.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Since I have been corresponding with the developers for over
a year on this matter, I do not feel that the developers
intend to use an outside appraisal firm as requested initially
by the City Council. With the County Assessor establishing
the value on the 2-1/2 acre parcel at $17,200, it does seem
odd that the appraisal of the property would only be $12,000;
but at this point, I would just as soon get this matter over
with and let the developers know for sure one way or the other
whether or not an actual certified appraisal will be a
requirement. If the Council Is comfortable with Mr. Goeman's
expertise, I would suggest accepting the $1,200 to clear up
this last remaining item regarding this plat. If the Council
Is uncomfortable with Mr. Coeman's involvement, I would
suggest either accepting the County Assessor's valuation or
Informing the developers once and for all that the plat will
not be recordable unless a certified appraisal is submitted.
SUPPORTING DATA:
May 4, 1989, letter from developers; January 5 loiter from Dan
Goeman Realty; January 8 letter from developers; April 18
letter from developer; May 1 letter from Gooman Realty.
22
MetCal/ & oLar!„n
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
P.O. Boa uB
313 west Broadway
Monlicalb. Mlnneaata SM0446
JAMES G. METCALF TELEPHONE
BRADLEY V. LARSON May 3, 1990 (81 32
METRO
(6 1 2) 421-3393
Mr. Rick wolfsteller
City Administrator
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
Re: Your Letter Dated April 30, 1990 Concerning
west Prairie Partners Proposed Plat and Park Dedication
Dear Rick:
In response to the above -referenced matter, please find an
enclosed appraisal from Goeman Realty dated May 1, 1990.
I believe this removes the earlier objections several
council members had. According to the appraisal by Mr. Goeman,
we are prepared to tender to the City our check in the amount of
$1,200.00 to complete this matter. Please advise me when this
can be accomplished.
Sincerely,
METCALF & LARSON
By:
am Esq.
JGM:ds
Enclosure
REPRESENTING QUALITY
Cce ■ ■an Uealtv
May 1, 1990
Mr. James G. Metcalf
Metcalf S Larson
Attorneys at Law
313 W. Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
Re: Appraisal of West Prairie Partners Property Proposed Plat
Dear Jim:
I wrote to you regarding the above -captioned matter on January 5, 1990. You
have informed me that the City finds my earlier evaluation inadequate,
basically because they believe it is an opinion. The evaluation of all real
estate is only opinion and that the value of the property is never established
until an arms length transaction is included.
In my January 5, 1990 letter I indicated the matters that I had considered in
arriving at my opinion. I will again summarize some of them here and indicate
that this letter is regarded by me to be an appraisal of the 2.5 acres
presently owned by West Prairie Partners.
I had reviewed 51 CRV's for unplatted land in the City of Monticello from 1981
forward. There is no similar transaction within the City of Monticello since
there has bean no platting of residential property within Cha City in that
period of time. The only comparable transaction would be the
Mark ling/Grossnick to transaction which I referred to in my January 5, 1990
letter. The valuation of $12,000.00 was arrived at by normal methods at the
Wright County Assessor's office. I understand that the City had paid for an
appraisal on the Markling property valuing the land only at less than
$12,000.00.
As I indicated in my January 5, 1990 letter, it is my opinion that the
Markling property should be valued somewhat higher because it is not adjacent
to the railroad track. While the valuation of your parcel could be higher, as
I earlier indicated, 1t is also arguable that it should bo lower than the
Markling property, for the reasons earlier indicated.
THEREFORE. IT IS MY APPRAISAL THAT THE VALUE OF THE WEST PRAIRIE PARTNERS
PROPERTY WHEN YOU ACQUIRED IT WAS $12,000.00.
Sinceroly,
G/OE REALTY, C
DLG:bkh
201 West Broodway. P.O. Box 325, MontICe110, MInnnesoto 55362 • (612) 205.4200 • Matto 33e-3141
M.I".If & oCa„o„
ATTORNEY$ AT LAW
PO Bo. 4a
317'011 1"'0*”
Mpn11C0110. MInn t. SM0448
JAMES G. METCALF TELEPHONE
BRADLEY V. LARSON (81212953272
METRO
April 18, 1990 (8 1 21 421-3M
Mr. Rick wolfsteller
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
P.O. Box 1147
Monticello, MN 55362
RE: West Prairie Partners Proposed Plat and Park Dedication
Dear Mr. wolfsteller:
I am enclosing a copy of the real estate tax bill, which
lists a valuation of $17,200.00.
Please advise me if you are in a position to close this
matter.
Sincerely,
METCALF & LARSON
BY _
et tca , Es .
JGM:dms
Enclosure
9
/ Ica if & —..".-
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PO Bo. u6
313 west BNee.ey
Monuteuo, Min .W. &U62duB
JAMES G, METCALF TELEPHONE
BRADLEY V. LARSON (61Z 29a1272
January 8, 1990 METRO
1612) 4213399
Mr. Ken Maus, Mayor
City of Monticello
Monticello, MN 55362
Mr. Rick Wolfsteller
City of Monticello
Monticello, MN 55362
re: Proposed Plat of west Prairie Partners
Gentlemen:
I am delivering to the Mayor a copy of Mr. Goeman's letter
dated January 5, 1990, and a copy of my letter to the Wright
County Assessor's Office dated January 4, 1990. I am delivering
to Mr. wolfsteller copies of both of those letters, although he
has already received a copy of the January 4th letter, and with
Mr. Wolfsteller's package are the 51 Certificates of Real Estate
Value that Mr. Goeman refers to.
As I have told both of you earlier, this matter cannot be
resolved to everyone's satisfaction because the requirements of
the City are somewhat unique as far as real estate valuation
purposes are concerned, the almost total lack of comparable
transactions, and the lack of goodwill that west Prairie Partners
has managed to generate. I have previously stated my arguments
on these points and will not repeat them here.
Our proposal of $1,700.00 was rejected. I offeredS1,100.00
based upon my calculation of the Markling property, which
according to my calculation was in fact 81,125.00, but since Mr.
Goeman believes that the calculation should be $1,200.00, I am
prepared to offer $1,200.00 as the park dedication fee for this
parcel.
If either of you have any questions, kindly call me at your
convenience.
Sincerely,
KETE�LF & LARSON
BY:
JGM:dms J Matcal q.
pc: John Sandberg
REPRESENTING QUALITY
Gceman UedKy
January 5, 1990
Mr. Jim Metcalf
Attorneyat Lav
313 West Broadway
P.O. Box 446
Monticello, MN 55362
Re: Appraisal of West Prairie Partners
property for proposed plat
Dear Jim:
In response to your letter of December 13, 1989, I have reviewed
51 CRV's for unplatted land in the city of Monticello dating
back to March 2, 1981. Copies attached.
The Markling/Grossnickle transaction dated August 17, 1988,
stands out as the most comparable property in the Monticello
area.
Both properties are similar in relationship to zoning, size,
and location. Both are bordered by roadways with moderate
to heavy traffic, namely County Road 39 and County Highway
75. Both properties provide an attractive view of the Monticello
Country Club Golf Course.
The West Prairie Partners property, however, has the disadvantage
of the railroad track and right-of-way between it and the golf
course, which cuts off access to the Golf Course. This, in
my opinion, detracts from the overall value of the property
in comparison to the Markling property.
Based upon the lack of any totally comparable properties as
would generally be used in the Real Estate business, I feel
that any figure would be arbitrary.
If you are interested in a figure, it would be my opinion that
the West Prairie Partners property would be valued at $12,000,
as vas the Grossnickle property, to a high of $15,000, keeping
in mind the restricted access to the Golf Course.
201 West Broadwoy, P.O. Bo. 725, Monticello, Mlnnnosota 55302 • (d 12) 205.4200 • Metro J38• 1
�f
Mr. Jim Metcalf
Page 2
January 5, 1990
This information is submitted as my personal opinion rather
than a formal appraisal due to my previous involvement in the
West Prairie Partners/Temple Baptist Church transaction.
I hope this information will be of some help to yourself and
the City.
Sincerely,
COE REAL�IHiK/Y���'�
Daniel L. Goeman, GRI, CREA
Broker
DLG:bkh
Enclosures
(9
In response to the above captioned matter, as far as I am
concerned the City has now had almost seven months to come up
with a determination and I can see of no reason to attend yet
another meeting on November 27th. we have attended numerous
meetings in the past and have talked to the city staff on
numerous occasions, and particularly this matter has been before
the Planning Commission twice and the Council twice regarding the
subdivision of this parcel alone. Why the matter requires an
additional meeting is a mystery to me and I will assume you can
carry on without my participation.
Also be advised that West Prairie Partners will not pay for the
cost of the City making an appraisal, or anybody else making an
appraisal, without first having an arrangement concerning who
shall do the appraisal, the extent of the appraisal, and the fee
involved. The idea of having the property appraised when there
is recent evidence of a transaction makes little sense, and even
less when the City and County have appraisers available for
establishing the market value of property for real estate tax
purposes.
I trust that you will provide the Council with the substance of
this letter, or a copy of it, at or in advance of the November
27th meeting. If you wish to discuss this further, please
contact me at your convenience. If you conclude that I am not
impressed with the time delay encountered and the manner in which
the Council may proceed, and I expect they probably would if you
recommend it, you are quite correct.
Sincerely,
METCALF & LARSON' y
James /G/1. Metcalf, F, a
JGM:as / /v`
0
W.1'a// & —."..
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
POSn. 446317
Waal Broadway
Zllcell M, wla SSW Moa
November 22, 1989
JAMES G. METCALF
TELEPHONE
BRADLEY V. LARSON
(812) 2953232
Mr. Rick Wolfsteller
METRO
(812) 421-M3
City Administrator
250 E. Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
RE: Your letter dated
November 20, 1989 regarding West
Prairie Partners
Subdivision
Dear Mr. wolfsteller:
In response to the above captioned matter, as far as I am
concerned the City has now had almost seven months to come up
with a determination and I can see of no reason to attend yet
another meeting on November 27th. we have attended numerous
meetings in the past and have talked to the city staff on
numerous occasions, and particularly this matter has been before
the Planning Commission twice and the Council twice regarding the
subdivision of this parcel alone. Why the matter requires an
additional meeting is a mystery to me and I will assume you can
carry on without my participation.
Also be advised that West Prairie Partners will not pay for the
cost of the City making an appraisal, or anybody else making an
appraisal, without first having an arrangement concerning who
shall do the appraisal, the extent of the appraisal, and the fee
involved. The idea of having the property appraised when there
is recent evidence of a transaction makes little sense, and even
less when the City and County have appraisers available for
establishing the market value of property for real estate tax
purposes.
I trust that you will provide the Council with the substance of
this letter, or a copy of it, at or in advance of the November
27th meeting. If you wish to discuss this further, please
contact me at your convenience. If you conclude that I am not
impressed with the time delay encountered and the manner in which
the Council may proceed, and I expect they probably would if you
recommend it, you are quite correct.
Sincerely,
METCALF & LARSON' y
James /G/1. Metcalf, F, a
JGM:as / /v`
0
/A1'. 11 &'X""".
AFrORNEYS Ar LAW
vo so. ue
]U Vhfl Br000rAf
MomiCf110, minnefDIA 55U204fe
JAMESU. ME II:AI.F IFI.EI'1 IIn IF
DnAULEY V. LAIISUN May 4, 1989 (612)2953232
MEIn-
(GI
2) 4213393
Mr. Rick Wolfsteller
City Administrator
Monticello City Nall
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
RE: PROPOSED PLAT OF WEST PRAIRIE PARTNERS
Dear Mr. Wolfsteller:
At Its mceLLny on May 2, 1984, the PLannLny Comini.ssion
recommended the approval of the above -referenced plaL wILhuut
qualification. It is my understanding that this will come before
the Council on the 8th of May, and it would be our intention to
make a cash contribution, rather than a land donation to
accomplish the park requirements.
As most of the town already knows, our acquisition cost was
$110,000.00 and we have entered .into a Contract for Deed
arrangement to sell the two (2) lots on Fourth Street for
$33,000.00 and have recently suld the structure rnl (Ain. former
Baptist property for a ncL $G0,000.U0. Thi.^, wou.Ld pinl:c our Cost
on the two and one-half acre parcel at approximately $17,000.00
or $6,800.00 per acre. Accordinyly, we are prepared to offer a
$1,700.00 contribution to satisfy the park requirement.
We also are interested in retaining Mr. John Badalich to
prepare the plans and specifications for the installation of the
water, sanitary sewer, streets and curbs. Since this appears to
be a relatively straight forward project where no great
discretion would be used as to how the project should be
designed, we do not believe that there would be any conflict
using Mr. Undalich, and we would desire to avoid the additional -
expense of gettiny an extra engineer involved. l have discussed
this matter generally with Mr. Badalich In the past, and I
believe that he will require that lie ycLs permission to do so
from you, or the Council.
If you have any questions or wish to discuss the matters
raised in this letter further, please call me at your
convenience.
Sincerely,
METC F LARSON
By:�
JGM:dms Jam i t; Metcalf, ':y.
Council Agenda - 5/14/90
14. Consideration of a zoning amendment to amend the entire
sections of Chapter 18, Flood Plain Manaqement Ordinance.
Applicant, City of Monticello. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Our flood plain ordinance is noncompliant due to 1986 changes
In the federal requirements of the national flood insurance
program. Enclosed are the areas highlighted with changes.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Amend the entire section of the flood plain ordinance.
2. Do not amend the entire section of the flood plain
ordinance.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends to amend the ordinance as presented.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the amended flood plain ordinance.
23
Sample Two District Floodplain Management Ordinance
Two -Map Format
June 7, 1988
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
SECTION 1.0 STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION, FINDINGS OF
FACT AND PURPOSE 1
1.1 Statutory Authorization 1
1.2 Findings of Fact 1
1.3 Statement of Purpose 1
SECTION 2.0 GENERAL PROVISIONS 1
2.1 Lands to Which Ordinance Applies 1
2.2 Establishment of Official Zoning Map 1
2.3 Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation 2
2.4 Interpretation 2
2.5 Abrogation and Greater Restrictions 2
2.6 Warning and Disclaimer of Liability 2
2.7 Severability 2
2.8 Definitions 2
SECTION 3.0 ESTABLISHMENT OF ZONING DISTRICTS 4
3.1 Districts 4
3.2 Compliance 4
SECTION 4.0 FLOODWAY DISTRICT (FW) 5
4.1 Permitted Uses 5
4.2 Standards for Floodway Permitted Uses 5
4.3 Conditional Uses 5
4.4 Standards for Floodway Conditional Uses 6
SECTION 5.0 FLOOD FRINGE DISTRICT (FF) 7
5.1 Permitted Uses 7
5.2 Standards for Flood Fringe Permitted
Uses 8
5.3 Conditional Uses 8
5.4 Standards for Flood Fringe Conditional
Uses 8
5.5 Standards for All Flood Fringe Uses 10
SECTION 6.0 Roserved for Future Use
SECTION 7.0 SUBDIVISIONS 11
7.1 Land Suitability Review Criteria 11
0
7.2
Removal of Special Flood Hazard Area
Designation
it
SECTION
8.0
UTILITIES, RAILROADS, ROADS, AND
BRIDGES
11
8.1
Public Utilities
11
8.2
Public Transportation Facilities
11
8.3
On-site Sewage Treatment and Water
Supply Systems
12
SECTION
9.0
MANUFACTURED HOMES/TRAVEL TRAILERS AND
TRAVEL VEHICLES
12
9.1
New Manufactured Home Parks
12
9.2
Replacement Manufactured Homes -
Existing Parks
12
9.3
Travel Trailers/Travel Vehicles
12
SECTION
10.0
ADMINISTRATION
13
10.1
Zoning Administrator
13
10.2
Permits, Certification Requirements
and Record Keeping
14
10.3
Appeals and Variances/Duties of the
Board of Adjustment
15
10.4
Conditional Uses -Standards and
Evaluation Procedures
16
SECTION
11.0
NONCONFORMING USES
18
SECTION
12.0
PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION
19
SECTION
13.0
AMENDMENTS
20
0
SAMPLE TWO DISTRICT FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE
TWO -MAP FORMAT
SECTION 1.0 STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION, FINDINGS OF FACT AND
PURPOSE
1.1 Statutory Authorization: The legislature of the State
of Minn so a has, in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 104 and
qio
(Zoning Enabling Statute)
delegated the responsibility to local government units to
adopt regulations designed to minimize flood losses.
Therefore, the C;tU%'n'-ir;/ of
(governing body)
, Minnesota does ordain as follows:
(local unit)
1.2 Findings of Fact:
1.21 The flood hazard areas of %^�o�/ii ,_ O X
(local unit)
Minnesota, are subject to periodic inundation which results
in potential loss of life, loss of property, health and _
safety hazards, disruption of commerce and governmental
services, extraordinary public expenditures for flood Q
protection and relief, and impairment of the tax base, all
of which adversely affect the public health, safety, and
general welfare.
1.22 Methods Used to Analyze Flood Hazards. This
Ordinance is based upon a reasonable method of analyzing
flood hazards which is consistent with the standards
established by the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources.
1.3 Statement of Purpose: It is the purpose of this
Ordinance to promote the public health, safety, and general
welfare and to minimize those losses described in Section
1.21 by provisions contained herein.
SECTION 2.0 GENERAL PROVISIONS
2.1 Lands to which Ordinance Applies: This ordinance shall
apply to all lands within the jurisdiction of
' nn"J T 'C,' //•. shown on the Official Zoning
(local unit)
Map and/or the attachments thereto as being located within
the boundaries of the Floodway or Flood Fringe Districts.
2.2 Establishment of Official Zoning Map: The Official
Zoning Map together with all materials attached thereto is
hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of
0
this ordinance. The attached material shall include the
Flood Insurance Study for the prepared by
(focal unit)
the Federal Insurance Administration dated
fand the Flood Boundary and Floodwayap dated XWDA'7,1t//J I.77;
and Flood Insurance Rate Map dated/�U/7,f�/ /wgtherein.
The Off' 'al ZZ,,oninq Map sh�11 be on file in the Office of
the (,' M ,�Ji/1�,;.4., �A?1: and the
(City erk/County Auditor)
(Zonirfq Administrator)
2.3 Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation: The Regulatory
Flood Protection Elevation shall be an elevation no lower
than one foot above the elevation of the regional flood plus
any increases in flocd elevation caused by encroachments on
the flood plain that result from designation of a floodway.
2.4 Interpretation:
2.41 In their interpretation and application, the
provisions of this Ordinance shall be held to be minimum
requirements and shall be liberally construed in favor of
the Governing Body and shall not be deemed a limitation or
repeal of any other powers granted by State Statutes.
2.42 The boundaries of the zoning districts shall be
determined by scaling distances on the official Zoning Map.
Where interpretation is needed as to the exact location of
the boundaries of the district as shown on the Official
Zoning Map, as for example where there appears to be a
conflict between a mapped boundary and actual field
conditions and there is a formal appeal of the decision of
the Zoning Administrator, the Board of Adjustment shall make
the necessary interpretation � All decisions will bei based
on elevations on the regional (100 -year) flood profile and
,1 other available technical data. Persons contesting the
location of the district boundaries shall be given a
}1 reasonable opportunity o present their case to the Board
EIi ,UA1�
and to submit technicaltovidence }
2.5 Abrogation and Greater Restrictions: It is not intended
by this Ordinance to repeal, abrogate, or impair any
existing casements, covenants, or doed restrictions.
However, where this Ordinance imposes greater restrictions,
the provisions of this Ordinance shall provail. All other
ordinances inconsistent with this Ordinance are hereby
repealed to the extent of the inconsistency only.
2.6 warning and Disclaimer of Liability: This Ordinance
does not imply that areas outside the flood plain districts
or land uses permitted within ouch districts will be free
from flooding or flood damages. This Ordinance shall not
S
/-, or
create liabilitv on the oart of e ////, 14Xi,-j "//
7�,'
(name of local unit)
any officer or employee thereof for any flood damages that
result from reliance on this Ordinance or any administrative
decision lawfully made thereunder.
2.7 Severability: If any section, clause, provision, or
portion of this Ordinance is adjudged unconstitutional or
invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder
of this Ordinance shall not be affected thereby.
2.8 Definitions:Unless specifically defined below, words
i
or phrases used n thistOrdinance;'shall be interpreted so as
to give them the same meaning as they have in common usage
and so as to give this Ordinance its most reasonable
application.
2.811 Accessory Use or Structure - a use or structure on the
same lot with, and of a nature customarily incidental and
subordinate to, the principal use or structure.
r2.:.12 B
asement - means any area of a structure, including
crawl
p c es, having its floor or base subgrade (below
ground 1 evel) on all four sides, regardless of the depth of
excavation below ground level.
f
2.813 Conditional Use - means a specific type of structure
or land use listed in the official control that may be
allowed but only after an in-depth review procedure and with
appropriate conditions or restrictions as provided in the
official zoning controls or building codes and upon a
finding that: (1) certain conditions as detailed in the
zoning ordinance exist and (2) the structure and/or land use
conform to the comprehensive land use plan if one exists and
\,are compatible with the existing neighborhood.
2.814 Equal Degree of Encroachment - a method of determining
the location of floodway boundaries so that flood plain
lands on both sides of a stream are capable of conveying a
proportionate share of flood flows.
2.815 Flood - a temporary increase in the flow or stage of a
stream or in the stage of a wetland or lake that results in
the inundation of normally dry areas.
2.816 Flood Frequency -ftho frequency3for which it is
expected that a opecifid- flood Stage or discharge may be
equalled or exceeded.
2.817 Flood Fringe - that portion of the flood plain outside
of the floodway. Flood fringe is synonymous with the term
"fl odwa fringe" used in the Flood Insurance Study for
(lochl unit)
0
2.818 Flood Plain -tthe beds proper anf the areas adjoining
a -etland, lake or watercourse which have been or hereafter
may be covered by the regional flood.
2.819 Flood -Proofing - a combination of structural
provisions, changes, or adjustments to properties and
structures subject to flooding, primarily for the reduction
or elimination of flood damages.
2.820 Floodway - the bed of a wetland or lake anJ the
channel of a watercourse and those portions of tie adjoining
flood plain which are reasonably required to carry or store
the regional flood discharge.
2.821 Obstruction - any dam, wall, wharf, embankment, levee,
dike, pile, abutment, projection, excavation, channel
modification, culvert, building, w;;re fence, stockpile,
refuse, fill, structure, or mat.ter`inl� along, across, or
projecting into any channel, watercourse, or regulatory
flood plain which may impede, retard, or change the
direction of the flow of water, either in itself or by
catching or collecting debris carried by such water. _
.822 Principal Use or Structure - means all uses or
structures that are not accessory uses or structures.
2.823 Reach - a hydraulic engineering term to describe a
longitudinal segment of a stream or river gnfluenced by a
natural or man-made obstruction. In an urban area, he
segment of a stream or river between two consecutive bridge
crossings would most typically constitute a reach.
2.824 Regional Flood - a flood which is representative of
large floods known to have occurred generally in Minnesota
and reasonably characteristic of what can be expected to
occur on an average frequency in the magnitude of the 100 -
year recurrence interval. Regional flood is synonymous with
the term "base flood" used in the Flood Insurance Study.
2.825 Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation - The Regulatory
Flood Protection Elevation shall be an elevation no lower
than one foot above the elevation of the regional flood plus
any increases in flood elevation caused by encroachments on
the flood plain that result from designation of a floodway.
2.826 Structure - anything constctod or erected onhe
ground or attached to the ground{or on-site utilities,
including, but not limits to, b ildings, factories, sheds,
detached garages, cabins, manufactured homes, travel
trailors/vehiclos not moe ing the exemption criteria
specified in Section 9.31 of the ordinance and other similar
items.]
0
2.827 Variance - means a modification of a specific
permitted development standard required in an official
control including this ordinance to allow an alternative
development standard notstated as acceptable in the
official control, but only as applied to a particular
P
roperty for the purpose of alleviating a hardship,
practical difficulty or unique circumstance as defined and
elaborated upon in a community's respective planning and
zoning enabling legislation.
SECTION 1.0 ESTABLISHMENT OF ZONING DISTRICTS
7.1 Districts:
].11 Floodway District. The Floodway District shall
include those areas designated as floodwayLon the Flood
Boundary and Floodway Map adopted in Section 2.2.
7.12 Flood Fringe District. The Flood Fringe District
shall include those areas designated as floodway fringe Ton
the Flood Boundary and Floodway Map adopted in Section �.2
7.2 Compliance: No view structure or land shall hereafter be
used and no structure shall be located, extended, converted, -
or structurally altered without full compliance with the
terms of this Ordinance and other applicable regulations
which apply to uses within the jurisdiction of this
Ordinance. within the Floodway and Flood Fringe Districts,
all uses not listed as permitted uses or conditional uses in
Sections 4.0, 5.0 and 6.0 that follow, respectively, shall
be prohibited. In addition, a caution is provided here
that:
3.21 New manufactured homes, replacement manufactured
homes and certain travel trailers and travel vehicles are
subject to the general provisions of this Ordinance and
specifically Section 9.0;
7.22 Modifications, additions, structural alterations or
repair after damage to existing nonconforming structures andl
nonconforming uses of structures or land are regulated by
the general provisions of this Ordinance and specifically
Section 11.0; and
].2) As -built elevations for elevated or flood proofed
structures must be certified by ground surveys and flood
proofing techniques must be designed and certified by a
registered professional engineer or architect as specified
in the general provisions of this Ordinance and specifically
as stated in Section 10.0 of this Ordinance.
SECTION 4.0 FLOODWAY DISTRICT (FW)
4.1 Permitted Uses:
a
4.11 General farming, pasture, grazing, outdoor plant
nurseries, horticulture, truck farming, forestry, sod
farming, and wild crop harvesting.
4.12 Industrial -commercial loading areas, parking areas,
and airport landing strips.
+.13 Private and public golf courses, tennis courts,
driving ranges, archery ranges,icnic grounds, boat
launching ramps, swimming areas, parks, wildlife and nature
preserves, game farms, fish hatcheries, shooting preserves,
target ranges, trap and skeet ranges, hunting and fishing
areas, and single or multiple purpose recreational trails.,
4.14 Residential lawns, gardens, parking areas, and play
areas.
4.2 Standards for Floodway Permitted Uses:
4.21 The use shall have a low flood damage potential.
4.22 The use shall be permissible in the underlying zoning
district if one exists.
4.23 The use shall not obstruct flood flows or increase
flood elevations and shall not involve structures, Pill,
obstructions, excavations or storage of materials or
equipment.
4.3 Conditional Uses:
4.31 Structures accessary to the uses -(11isted in 4.1 above
and the uses listed in 4.32-4.38 below
4.32 Extraction and storage of sand, gravel, and other
materials.
4.33 Marinas, boat rentals, docks, piers, wharves, and
water control structures.
4.34 Railroads, streets, bridges, utility transmission
lines, and pipolines.
4.35 Storage yards for equipment, machinery, or materials.
4.36 Placement of fill.
4.37 Travel trailers and travel vehicles either on
individual lots of record or in existing or now subdivisions
or commercial or condominium type campgrounds, subject to
the exemptions and provisions of Section 9.3 of this
Ordinance.
0)
4.38 Structural works for flood control such as levees,
dikes and floodwalls constructed to any height where the
intent is to protect individual structures and levees or
dikes where the intent is to protect agricultural crops for
a frequency flood event equal to or less than the 10 -year J
frequency flood event.
4.4 Standards for Floodway Conditional Uses:
4.41 All Uses. No structure (temporary or permanent), fill
(including fill for roads and levees), deposit, obstruction,
storage of materials or equipment, or other uses may be
allowed as a Conditional UseTthat will cause any increase in
the stage of the 100 -year or egional flood or cause an
increase in flood damages in the reach or reaches affected.
4.42 All floodway Conditional Uses shall be subject to the
procedures and standards contained in Section 10.4 of this
ordinance. 777
,C4.43 The conditional use shall be permissible in the y
underlying zoning district if one exists. J
4.44 Fill:
r
(a) Fill, Lredge oil and all other similar materials)
depositedor storedyin the fl
plain shall`be protected
from erosion by ve etive cover, mulching, riprap or other
acceptable method.
(b) �Dredge spoil site and sand and ravel operations shaLL
not be -allowed}in the loodway unlessla long-term site
development plan is submitted which includes an
rosion/sedimentation prevention element to the plan}
(c) As an alternative, and consistent with Subsection (b)
immediately above, dredge spoil disposal and sand and gravel
operations may allow temporary, on-site storage of fill or
other materials which would have caused an increase to the
stage of the 100 -year or regional flood but only after the
Governing Body has received an appropriate plan which
assures the removal of the materials from the floodway based
upon the flood warning time available. The Conditional Use
Permit must be title registered with the property in the
Office of the County Recorder.
4.45 Accessory Structures:
(a) Accossory structures shall not be designed for human
habitation.
(b) Accessory structures, if permitted, shall oe
constructed and placed on the building site so as to offer
the minimum obstruction to the flow of flood waters.
(1) whenever possible, structures shall be constructed with
the longitudinal axis parallel to the direction of flood
flow, and, (2) So for as practicable, structures shall be
0
placed approximately on the same flood flow lines as those
of adjoining structures.
(c) Accessory structures shall be elevated on fill or
structurally dry flood proofed in accordance with the FP -1
or FP -2 flood proofing classifications in the State Buildin
Code. As an alternative, an accessory structure may be
flood proofed to the FP -3 or FP -4 flood proofing
classification in the State Building Code provided the
accessory structure constitutes a minimal investment, does
not exceed 500 square feet in size, and for a detached
garage, the detached garage must be used solely for parking
of vehicles and limited storage. All flood proofed
accessory structures must meet the following additional
standards, as appropriate:
(1) The structure must be adequately anchored to prevent
flotation, collapse or lateral movement of the structure and
shall be designed to equalize hydrostatic flood forces on
exterior walls; and
(2) Any mechanical and utility equipment in a structure
must be elevated to or above the Regulatory Flood Protecti0r,1
Elevation or properly flood proofed.
4.46 Storage of Materials and Equipment:
(a) The storage or processing of materials that are, in
time of flooding, flammable, explosive, or potentially
injurious to human, animal, or plant life is prohibited.
(b) Storage of other materials or equipment may be allowed
if readily removable from the area within the time available
after a floodwarning and in accordance with a plan approved
by the Governing Body."
4.47 Structural works for flood control that will change
the course, current or cross section of protected wetlands
or public waters shall be subject to the provisions of
Minnesota Statute, Chapter 105. Community -wide structural
works for flood control intended to remove areas from the
regulatory flood plain shall not be alloyed in the floodway.
4.48 A levee, dike or floodwall constructed in the floodway
shall not cause an increase to the 100 -year or regional
flood and the technical analysis must assume equal
conveyance or storage loss on both sides of a stream.
SECTION 5.0 FLOOD FRINGE DISTRICT (FF)
L
1 Permitted Uses: Permitted Uses shall be those uses of
nd or structures listed as Permitted Uses in the
derlying zoning use district(s). If no pre-existing,
derlying zoning use districts exist, then any residential
non residential structure or use of a structure or land
all be a Permitted Use in the Flood Fringe provided such
e does not constitute a public nuisance. All Permitted
Uses shall comply with the standards for Flood Fringe
"Permitted Uses" listed in Section 5.2 and the standards for
all Flood Fringe "Permitted and Conditional Uses" listed in
Section 5.5.
5.2 Standards for Flood Fringe Permitted Uses:
5.21 All structures, including accessory structures, must
be elevated on fill so that the lowest floor including
basement floor is at or above the Regulatory Flood
Protection Elevation. The finished fill elevation for
structures shall be no lower than one (1) foot below the
Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation and the fill shall
extend at such elevation at least fifteen (15) feet beyond
the outside limits of the structure erected thereon.
5.22 As an alternative to elevation on fill, accessory
structures that constitute a minimal investment and that do
not exceed 500 square feet for the outside dimension at
ground level may be internally flood proofed in accordance
with Section 4.45 (c).
5.23 The cumulative placement of fill where at any one time_
in excess of one -thousand (1,000) cubic yards of fill is
located on the parcel shall be allowable only as a
Conditional Use, unless said fill is specifically intended
to elevate a structure in accordance with Section 5.21 of
this ordinance.
5.24 The storage of any materials or equipment shall be
elevated on fill to the Regulatory Flood Protection
Elevation.
N.-5.25 The provisions of Section 5.5 of this Ordinance shall
apply.
5.3 Conditional Uses: Any structure that is not elevated on
fill or flood proofed in accordance with Section 5.21-5.22
or any use of land that does not comply with the standards
in Section 5.23-5.24 shall only be allowable as a
Conditional Use. An application for a Conditional Use shall
be subject to the standards and criteria and evaluation
procedures specified in Sections 5.4-5.5 and 10.4 of this
ordinance.
5.4 Standards for Flood Fringe Conditional Uses:
[5.41 Alternative elevation methods other than the use of
ll may be utilized to elevate a structure's lowest floor
ove the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. These
ternative mothods may include the use of stilts, pilings,
rallel walls, etc., or above-grado, enclosed areas such as
awl spaces or tuck under garages. The base or floor of an
closed area shall be considered above-grado and not a
structure's basement or lowest floor if: 1) if the enclosed
area is above -grade on at least one side of the structure;
2) is designed to internally flood and is constructed with
flood resistant materials; and 7) is used solely for parking
of vehicles, building access or storage. The aboved-noted %
alternative elevation methods are subject to the following
additional standards:
(a) Design and Certification - The structure's design and
1Ias -built condition must be certified by a registered
professional engineer or architect as being in compliance
with the general design standards of the State Building Code
Jand, specifically, that all electrical, heating,
ventilation, plumbing and air conditioning equipment and
other service facilities must be at or above the Regulatory
Flood Protection Elevation or be designed to prevent flood
water from entering or accumulating within these components
during times of flooding.(b) Specific Standards for Above -
grade, Enclosed Areas - Above -grade, fully enclosed areas
such as crawl spaces or tuck under garages must be designed
to internally flood and the design plans must stipulate:
(1) The minimum area'of openings in the walls where internal
flooding is to be used as a flood proofing technique. when
openings are placed in a structure's walls to provide for f/
entry of flood waters to equalize pressures, the bottom of
all openings shall be no higher than one -foot above grade.
Openings may be equipped with screens, louvers, valves, or `
other coverings or devices provided that they permit the \
automatic entry and exit of flood waters.
(2) That the enclosed area will be designed of flood
resistant materials in accordance with the FP-] or FP -4
classifications in the State Building Code and shall be used
\ aoolely for building access, parking of vehicles or storage.
5.42 Basements, as defined by Section 2.812 of this
Ordinance, shall be subject to the following:
(a) Residential basement construction shall not be allowed
below the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation.
tRs
b) Non-residential basements may be allowed below the
egulatory Flood Protection Elevation provided the basement
structurally dry flood proofed in accordance with Section
.4] of this Ordinance.
5.43 All areas of non residential structures including
basements to be placed below the Regulatory Flood Protection
Elevation shall be flood proofed in accordance with the
structurally dry flood proofing classifications in the State
Building Code. Structurally dry flood proofing must meet
the FP -1 or FP -2 flood proofing classification in the State
Building Code and this shall require making the structure
watertight with the walls substantially impermeable to the
passage of water and with structural components having the
capability of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads
and the effects of bouyancy. Structures flood proofed to
the FP -3 or FP -4 classification shall not be permitted.
5.44 when at any one time more than 1,000 cubic yards of
fill or other similar material is located on a parcel for
such activities as on-site storage, landscaping,sand and
gravel operations, landfills, roads, dredge spoil disposal
or construction of flood control works, an
erosion/sedimentation control plan must be submitted unless
T
he community is enforcing a state approved shoreland
nagement ordinance. In the absence of a state approved
oreland ordinance, the plan must clearly specify methods
be used to stabalize the fill on site for a flood event
a minimum of the 100 -year or regional flood event. The
an must be prepared and certified by a registered
ofessional engineer or other qualified individual
ceptable to the Governing Body. The plan may incorporate 1ternative procedures for removal of the material from theJood plain if adequate flood warning time exists.
5.45 Storage of Materials and Equipment:
(a) The storage or processing of materials that are, in
time of flooding, flammable, explosive, or potentially
injurious to human, animal, or plant life is prohibited.
(b) Storage of other materials or equipment may be allowed
if readily removable frcm the area within the time available
after a flood warning and in accordance with a plan approved
by the Governing Body.
5.46 The provisions of Section 5.5 of this Ordinance shall
also apply.
5.5 Standards for All Flood Fringe Uses:
5.51 All new principal structures must have vehicular
access at or above an elevation not more than two (2) feet
below the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. If a
variance to this requirement is granted, the Board of
Adjustment must specify limitations on the period of use or
occupancy of the structure for times of flooding and only
after determining that adequate flood warning time and local
flood emergency response procedures exist.
5.52 Commercial Uses - accessory land uses, such as yards,
railroad tracks, and parking lots may be at elevations lower
than the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. However, a
permit for such facilities to be used by the employees or
the general public shall not be granted in the absence of a
flood warning system that provides adequate time for
evacuation if the area would be inundated to a depth greater
(F
than two feet or be subject to flood velocities greater than
four feet per second upon occurrence of the regional flood.
5.53 Manufacturing and Industrial Uses - measures shall be
taken to minimize interference with normal plant operations
especially along streams having protracted flood durations.
Certain accessory land uses such as yards and parking lots
may be at lower elevations subject to requirements set out
in Section 5.52 above. In considering permit applications,
due consideration shall be given to needs of an industry
whose business requires that it be located in flood plain
areas.
5.54 Fill shall be properly compacted and the slopes shall
be properly protected by the use of riprap, vegetative cover
or other acceptable method. The Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) has established criteria for
removing the special flood hazard area designation for
certain structures properly elevated on fill above the 100 -
year flood elevation - FEMA's requirements incorporate
specific fill compaction and side slope protection standards
for multi -structure or multi -lot developments. These
standards should be investigated prior to the initiation of
site prepdration if a change of special flood hazard area I
designation will be requested.
5.55 Flood plain developments shall not adversely affect \
the hydraulic capacity of the channel and adjoining flood
plain of any tributary watercourse or drainage system where
a floodway or other encroachment limit has not been
specified on the Official Zoning Map.
5.56 Standards for travel trailers and travel vehicles are
contained in Section 9.3.
5.57 All manufactured homes must be securely anchored to an
adequately anchored foundation system that resists
flotation, collapse and lateral movement. Methods of
anchoring may include, but are not to be limited to, use of
over -the -top or frame ties to ground anchors. This
requirement is in addition to applicable state or local
anchoring requirements for resisting wind forces.
SECTION 6.0 Reserved for Future Use
aga
SECTION 7.0 SUBDIVISIONS2
7.1 Review Criteria: No land shall be subdivided which is
unsuitable for the reason of flooding, inadequate drainage,
water supply or sewage treatment facilities. All lots
within the flood plain districts shall contain a building
site at or above the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation.
All subdivisions shall have water and sewage treatment
facilities that comply with the provisions of this Ordinance
and have road access both to the subdivision and to the
individual building sites no lower than _two feet below the
Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. `For all subdivisions
in the flood plain, the Floodway and Flood Fringe
boundaries, the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation and
the required elevation of all access roads shall be clearly
labelled on all required subdivision drawings and platting
documents.}
7.2 Removal of Special Flood Hazard Area Designation: The
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has established
criteria for removing the special flood hazard area
designation for certain structures properly elevated on fill
above the100-year flood elevation. FEMA's requirements _
incorporate specific fill compaction and side slope
protection standards for multi -structure or multi -lot
lvelopments. These standards should be investigated prior
o the initiation of site preparation if a change of specia
llood hazard area designation will be requested. Lj
SECTION 8.0 PUBLIC UTILITIES, RAILROADS, ROADS, AND BRIDGES
8.1 Public Utilities. All public utilities and facilities
such as gas, electrical, sewer, and water supply systems to
be located in the flood plain shall be flood -proofed in
accordance with the State Building Code or elevated to above
the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation.
8.2 Public Transportation Facilities. Railroad tracks,
roads, and bridges to be located within the flood plain
shall comply with Sections 4.0 and 5.0 of this Ordinance.
Elevation to the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation shall
be provided where failure or interruption of these
transportation facilities would result in danger to the
public health or safety or where such facilities are
essential to the orderly functioning of the area. Minor or
auxiliary roads or railroads may be constructed at a lower
elevation where failure or interruption of transportation
services would not endanger the public health or safety.
2 This Section is not intended as a substitute for a
comprehensive city or county subdivision ordinance. It can,
however, be used as an interim control until the
comprehensive subdivision ordinance can be amended to
include necessary flood plain management provisions.
3
8.3 On-site Sewage Treatment and water Supply Systems:
Where public utilities are not provided: 1) On-site water
supply systems must be designed to minimize or eliminate
infiltration of flood waters into the systems; and 2) New or
replacement on-site sewage treatment systems must be
designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood
waters into the systems and discharges from the systeas into
flood waters and they shall not be subject to impairment or
contamination during times of flooding. Any sewage
treatment system designed in accordance with the State's
current statewide standards for on-site sewage treatment
systems shall be determined to be in compliance with this
Section.
SECTION 9.0 MANUFACTURED HOMES AND MANUFACTURED HOME PARKS
AND PLACEMENT OF TRAVEL TRAILERS AND TRAVEL VEHICLES.
9.1 New "manufactured home parks and expansions to existing
mobile manufacture home parks shall be subject to the
provisions placed on subdivisions by Section 7.0 of this
Ordinance.
/9.2 The placement of new or replacement manufactured homes
in existing manufactured home parks or on individual lots of -
record that are located in flood plain districts will be
f treated as a new structure and may be placed only if
elevated in compliance with Section 5.0 of this Ordinance.
If vehicular road access for pre-existing manufactured home
\ parks is not provided in accordance with Section 5.51, then
replacement manufactured homes will not be allowed until the
property owner(s) develops a flood warning emergency plan
acceptable to the Governing Body.
9.21 All manufactured homes must be securely anchored to an
adequately anchored foundation system that resists
flotation, collapse and lateral movement. Methods of
anchoring may include, but are not to be limited to, use of
over -the -tap or frame ties to ground anchors. This
requirement is in addition to applicable state or local
anchoring requirements for resisting wind forces.
i
9.3 Travel trailers and travel vehicles that do not meet the
exemption criteria specified in Section 9.71 below shall be
subject to the provisions of this Ordinance and as
specifically spelled out in Sections 9.73-9.74 below.
�1
9.31 Exemption - Travel trailers and travel vehicles are
exempt from the provisions of this Ordinance if they are
placed in any of the areas listed in Section 9.32 below and
further they meet the following criteria:
( (a) Have current licenses required for highway uoo.
(b) Are highway ready meaning on wheels or the internal
jacking system, are attached to the site only by quick
disconnect type utilities commonly used in campgrounds and
trailer parks and the travel trailer/travel vehicle has no
permanent structural type additions attached to it.
(c) The travel trailer or travel vehicle and associated use
must be permissible in any pre-existing, underlying zoning
use district.
9.32 Areas Exempted For Placement of Travel/Recreational
Vehicles:
(a) Individual lots or parcels of record.
(b) Existing commercial recreational vehicle parks or
campgrounds.
(c) Existing condominium type associations.
19.33 Travel trailers and travel vehicles exempted in
Section 9.31 lose this exemption when development occurs on
Ithe parcel exceed inq;/J&t ollars for a structural addition
to the travel trailer/travel vehicle or an accessory
'structure such as a garage or storage building. The travel
trailer/travel vehicle and all additions and accessory
structures will then be treated as a new structure and shall
be subject to the elevation/flood proofing requirements and
the use of land restrictions specified in Sections 4.0 and \
5.0 of this Ordinance.
9.34 Now commercial travel trailer or travel vehicle parks
or campgrounds and new residential type subdivisions and
condominium associations and the expansion of any existing
similar use exceeding five (5) units or dwelling sites shall
be subject to the following:
(a) Any new or replacement travel trailer or travel vehicle
will be allowed in the Floodway or Flood Fringe Districts
provided said trailer or vehicle and its contents are placed
on fill above the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation and
proper elevated road access to the site exists in accordance
with Section 5.51 of this Ordinance. Any fill placed in a
floodway for the purpose of elevating a travel trailer shall
be subject to the requirements of Section 4.0.
(b) All now or replacement travel trailers or travel
vehicles not meeting the criteria of (a) above may, as an
alternative, be allowed as a Conditional Use if in
accordance with the following provisions and the provisions
of 10.4 of the Ordinance. The applicant must submit an
emergency plan for the safe evacuation of all vehicles and
people during the 100 year flood. Said plan shall be
prepared by a registered engineer or other qualified
individual and shall demonstrate that adequate time and
personnel exist to carry out the evacuation. All attendant
sewage and water facilities for new or replacement travel
trailers or other recreational vehicles must be protected or
\
i
constructed so as to not bo impaired or contamnated di
U, _g
times of flooding in accordance with Section 8.1 of this
Ordinance.
SECTION 10.0 ADMINISTRATION
10.1 Zoning Administrator: A Zoning Administrator
designated by the Governing Body shall administer and
enforce this Ordinance. If the Zoning Administrator finds a
violation of the provisions of this Ordinance the Zoning
Administrator shall notify the person responsible for such
violation tin accordance with the procedures stated in
Section 12.0 of the Ordinance.
10.2 Permit Requirements:
10.21 Permit Required. A Permit issued by the Zoning
Administrator in conformity with the provisions of this
Ordinance shall be secured prior to the erection, addition,
or alteration of any building, structure, or portion
thereof; prior to the use or chanr1ge of use of a building,
structure, or land; prior to thefchange or extension of a
nonconforming use; -'.and pr'0r to the placement of fill,
excavation of materials,r the storage of materials or
equipmen�within the floo "plain.
10.22 Application for Permit. Application for a Permit
shall be made in duplicate to the Zoning Administrator on
forms furnished by the Zoning Administrator and shall
include the following where applicable: plans in duplicate
drawn to scale, showing the nature, location, dimensions,
and elevations of the lot; existing or proposed structures,
fill, or storage of materials; and the location of the
foregoing in relation to the stream channel.
10.23 State and Federal Permits. Prior to granting a Permit
or processing an application for a Conditional Use Permit or
Variance, the Zoning Administrator shall determine that the
applicant has obtained all. necessary State and Federal
Permits.
10.24 Certificate of Zoning Compliance for a New, Altered,
or Nonconforming Use. It shall be unlawful to use, occupy,
or permit the use or occupancy of any building or premises
or part thereof hereafter created, erected, changed,
converted, altered, or enlarged in its use or structure
until a Certificate of Zoning Compliance shall have beer.
issued by the Zoning Administrator stating that the use of
the building or land conforms to the requirements of this
Ordinance.
10.25 Construction and Use to be as Provided on
Applications, Plans, Permits, Variances and Certificates of
Zoning Compliance. Permits, Conditional Use Permits, or
Certificates of Zoning Compliance issued on the basis of
0
approved plans and applications authorize only the use,
arrangement, and construction set forth in such approved
plans and applications, and no other use, arrangement, or
construction. Any use, arrangement, or construction at
variance with that authorized shall be deemed a violation of
this Ordinance, and punishable as provided by Section 12.0
of this Ordinance.
10.26 Certification. The applicant shall be required to
submit certification by a registered professional engineer,
registered architect, or registered land surveyor that the
finished fill and building elevations were accomplished in
compliance with the provisions of this ordinance. Flood -
proofing measures shall be certified by a registered
professional engineer or registered architect.
10.27 Record of First Floor Elevation. The Zoning
Administrator sh11 maintain a record of the elevation of
Etlowest floo
he r (including basement) of all new structures
and alterations or additions to existing structures in the
flood plain. The Zoning Administrator shall also maintain a
record of the elevation to which structures and alterations
or additions to structures are flood -proofed.
10.7 Board of Adjustment:
10.71 Rules. The Board of Adjustment shall adopt rules for
the conduct of business and may exercise all of the powers
conferred on such Boards by State law.
10.32 Administrative Review. The Board shall hear and
decide appeals where it is alleged there is error in any
order, requirement, decision, or determination made by an
administrative offical in the enforcement or administration
of this Ordinance.
10.]] Variances. The Board may authorize upon appeal in
specific cases such relief or variance from the terms of
this Ordinance as will not be contrary to the public
interest and only for those circumstances such as hardship,
practical difficulties or circumstances unique to the
property under consideration, as provided for in the
respective enabling legislation for planning and zoning for
cities or counties as appropriate. In the granting of such
variance, the Board of Adjustment shall clearly identify in
writing the specific conditions that existed consistent with
the criteria specified in the respective enabling
legislation which justified the granting of the variance
No variance shall have the affect of allowing in any
district uses prohibited in that district, permit a lower
degree of flood protection than the Regulatory Flood
Protection Elevation for the particular area, or permit
standards lower than those required by State law.
0
10.34 Hearings. Upon filing with the Board of Adjustment of
an appeal from a decision of the Zoning Administrator, or an
application for a variance, the Board shall fix a reasonable
time for a hearing and give due notice to the parties in
interest�as specified by law 3 The Board shall submit by
mail to tii�ie Commissioner of Natural Resources a copy of the
application for proposed Variances sufficiently in advance
so that the Commissioner will receive at least ten days
notice of the hearing.
10.35 Decisions. The Board shall arrive at a decision on
such appeal or Variance within q10 days. In
passing upon an appeal, the Board may, so long as such
action is in conformity with the provisions of this
Ordinance, reverse or affirm, wholly or in part, or modify
the order, requirement, decision or determina ..on,of the
Zoning Administrator or other public official. It shall
make its decision in writing setting forth th" findings of
fact and the reasons for its decisions. In granting a
Variance the Board may prescribe appropriate conditions and
safeguards such as those specified in Section 10.46, which
are in conformity with the purposes of this Ordinance.
Violations of such conditions and safeguards, when made a _
part of the terms under which the variance is granted, shall
be deemed a violation of this Ordinance punishable under
Section 12.0. A copy of all decisions granting Variances
shall be forwarded by mail to the Commissioner of Natural
Resources within ten (10) days of such action.
10.36 Appeals. Appeals from any decision of the Board may
be made, and as specified in this Community's Offical
Controls and also Minnesota Statutes
10.17 Flood Insurance Notice and Record Keeping. The Zoning
Administrator shall notify the applicant for a variance
that: 1) The issuance of a variance to construct a
structure below the base flood level will result in
increased premium rates for flood insurance up to amounts as
high as $25 for $100 of insurance coverage and 2) Such
construction below the 100 -year or regional flood level
increases risks to life and property. Such notification
shall be maintained with a record of all variance actions.
A community shall maintain a record of all variance actions,
including justification for their issuance, and report such
variances issued in its annual or biennial report submitted
to the Administrator of the National Flood Insurance
Program.
10.4 Con ition i Uses. The
�, � 0,11 MI / 1�
(Governing Body/Planning Comm./Bd. of Adjust.) shall hear
and decide applications for Conditional Uses permissible
under this Ordinance. Applications shall be submitted to
the ZoningAdeinist who shall forward the application
to ator 4 nq_tJ1; f for consideration.
r (Designated Body)
10.41 HeriI
C,�jngs. upon filing with the
t4 I i an application for a
(Designated Body)
Conditional Use Permit, the (41j4 coyp�?:/ shall submit
(Des&gnated Body)
by mail to the Commissioner of Natural Resources a copy of
the application for proposed Conditional Use sufficiently in
advance so that the Commissioner will receive at least ten
days notice of the hearing.
10.42 Decisions. The t/ku,i/ el,' shall arrive at
(Desig7hated Body)
a decision on a Conditional Use within days. In
grantinga Conditional Use Permit the
C:Zrsha113 prescribe appropriate
(DesignAed Body)
conditions and safeguards, in addition to those specified in
Section 10.46, which are in conformity with the purposes of
this Ordinance. Violations of such conditions and
safeguards, when made a part of the terms under which the
Conditional Use Per -nit is granted, shall be deemed a
violation of this Ordinance punishable under Section 12.0.
A copy of all decisions granting Conditional Use Permits
shall be forwarded by mail to the commissioner of Natural
Resources within ten (10) days of such action.
10.43 Procedures to be followed by the (4aAl(d-
(Designted Body)
in Passing on Conditional Use Permit Applications Within all
Flood Plain Districts.
(a) Require the applicant to furnish such of the following
information d additiR al information],as deemed necessary
by the �11� Z, (h,Alfil. for determining the suitability of
(Desigrrated Body)
the particular site for the proposed use:
(1) Plans in triplicate drawn to scale showing the nature,
location, dimensions, and elevation of the lot, existing or
proposed structures, fill, storage of materials, flood -
proofing measures, and the relationship of the above to the
location of the stream channel.
(2) Specifications for building construction and materials,
flood -proofing, filling, dredging, grading, channel
improvement, storage of materials, water supply and sanitary
facilities.
(b) Transmit one copy of the information described in
subsection (a) to a designated engineer or other expert
person or agency for technical assistance, where necessary,
Le
in evaluating the proposed project in relation to flood
heights and velocities, the seriousness of flood damage to
the use, the adequacy of the plans for protection, and other
technical matters.
(c) Based upon the technical evaluation of the designated
engineer or expert, the is Co�,(d shall determine the
(Desigrfated Body)
specific flood hazard at the site and evaluate the
suitability of the proposed use in relation to the flood
hazard.
10.44 Fppctors Upon which the Decision of the
r;?! /uv.•;; ( Shall Be Based. In passing
(Designated Body)
upono itional Us applications, the
r shall consider all relevant factors
(Designate Body) '
specified in other sections of this Ordinance, and:
(a) The danger to life and property due to increased flood
heights or velocities caused by encroachments.
(b) The danger that materials may be swept onto other lands_
or downstream to the injury of others£or they may block
bridges, culverts or other hydraulic structures
(c) The proposed water supply and sanitation systems and
the ability of these systems to prevent disease,
contamination, and unsanitary conditions.
(d) The susceptability of the proposed facility and its
contents to flood damage and the effect of such damage on
the individual owner.
(e) The importance of the services provided by the proposed
facility to the community.
(f) The requirements of the facility for a waterfront
location.
(g) The availability of alternative locations not subject
to flooding for the proposed use.
(h) The computability of the proposed use with existing
development and development anticipated in the forseeable
future.
(i) The relationship of the proposed use to the
comprehensive plan and flood plain management program for
the area.
(j) The safety of access to the property in times of flood
for ordinary and emergency vehicles.
(k) The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate o: rise,
and sediment transport of the flood waters expected at the
site.
(1) Such other factors which are relevant to the purposes
of this Ordinance.
10.45o for Acting on Application. The
(; T/n , I'] e, ( shall act on an application in the
(Desigrfated Body)
9
manner described above within _() days from receiving the
application, except that where additional information is
requiredpursuant to 10.44 of this Ordinance. The
/,' 4 /p / shall render a written decision within
(Designaibd Body)
" days from the receipt of such additional information.
10.46 Conditions Attached to Conditional Use Permits. Upon
consideration of the factorlisted agove and the purpose of
this Ordinance, the (_,'7w 'ehal�attach such
(DesigAted Body)
conditions to the granting of Conditional Use Permits as it
deems necessary to fulfill the purposes of this Ordinance.
Such conditions may include, but are not limited to, the
following:
(a) Modification of waste treatment and water supply
facilities.
(b) Limitations on period of use, occupancy, and operation.
(c) Imposition of operational controls, sureties, and deed
restrictions.
(d) Requirements for construction of channel modifications,
compensatory storage, dikes, levees, and other protective
measures.
(e) Flood -proofing measures, in accordance with the State
Building Code and this Ordinance. The applicant shall
submit a plan or document certified by a registered
professional engineer or architect that the flood -proofing
measures are consistent with the Regulatory Flood Protection
Elevation and associated flood factors for the particular
area.
SECTION 11.0 NONCONFORMING USES
11.1 A structure or the use of a structure or premises
which was lawful before the passage or amendment of this
Ordinance but which is not in conformity with the provisions
of this Ordinance may be continued subject to the following
conditions:
11.11 No such use shall be expanded, changed, enlarged, or
altered in a way which increases its nonconformity.
11.12 Any alteration or addition to aCnonconforming
8tructure3 or nonconforming use which would result in
increasing the flood damage potential of that tructurez or
use shall be{protectod to the Regulatory Floo Protection
Elevation in accordance with any of the elevation on fill or
flood proofing techniques ( i.e. , FP -1 thru FP -4
floodproofing classifications) allowable in the State
Building Coda, except as further restricted in 11.13 below.
11.13 The cost of any structural alterations cr�additiong; to
any nonconforming structure over the life of the structure
/f�
shall not exceed 50 percent of the �marketivalue of the
structure unless the conditions of this eection are
satisfied. UVIe cost of all structural alterations and
additions constructed since the adoption of the Community's
initial flood plain controls must be calculated into today's
current cost which will include all costs such as
construction materials and a reasonable cost placed on all
manpower or labor. If the current cost of all previous and
proposed alterations and additions exceeds 50 percent of the
current market value of the structure, then the structure
must meet the standards of Section 4.0 or 5.0 of this
Ordinance for new structures depending upon whether the
structure is in the Floodway or Flood Fringe, respectively.
11.14 If any nonconforming use is discontinued for 12
consecutive months, any future use of the building premises
shall conform to this Ordinance. The assessor shall notify
the Zoning Administrator in writing of instances of
nonconforming uses which have been discontinued for a period
of 12 months.
11.15. If any nonconforming use or struct re is destroyed by
any means, includin flood to anfexten of 50 percent or
more if its market value at the time of destruction it
shall not be econstructe except in conformity with the
provisions of this Ordinance.The applicable provisions for
establishing new uses or new s ructures in Sections 4.0 or
5.0 will apply depending upon whether the use or structure
is in the Floodway or Flood Fringe District, respectively}
SECTION 12.0 PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION
12.1 Violation of the provisions of this Ordinance or
failure to comply with any of its requirements (including
violations of conditions and safeguards established in
connection with grants of Variances or Conditional Uses)
shall constitute z a misdemeanor and shall be punishable[as
3
defined by law
12.2 Nothir}g h rein contained shall prevent the
6,-� n{ N !M from taking such other lawful action
(loc9 unit)
as is necessary to prevent or remedy any violation. LSuch
actions may include but are not limited to„}'
Lbut
In responding to a suspected ordinance violation, the
g Administrator and Local Government may utilize the
array of enforcement actions available to it including
ot limited to prosecution and fines, injunctions,
-the-fact permits, orders for corrective measures or a
st to the National Flood Insurance Program for denial
ood insurance availability to the guilty pa=ty.Thonity must act in good faith to enforce these official
ols and to correct ordinance violations to the extent
possible so as not to jeopardize its eligibility in the
National Flood Insurance Program.
12.22 When an ordinance violation is either discovered by or 1!
brought to the attention of the Zoning Administrator, the
Zoning Administrator shall immediately investigate the
situation and document the nature and extent of the /
violation of the official control. As soon as is reasonably
possible, this information will be submitted to the /
appropriate Department of Natural Resources' and Federal
1 Emergency Management Agency Regional Office along with the %
Community's plan of action to correct the violation to the
degree possible.
I
12.23 The Zoning Administrator shall notify the suspected I
jparty of the requirements of this Ordinance and all other )
Official Controls and the nature and extent of the suspectedi
violation of these controls. If the structure and/or use is)
under construction or development, the Zoning Administrator ,
may order the construction or development immediately halted
until a proper permit or approval is granted by the �•
Community. If the construction or development is already
completed, then the Zoning Administrator may either (1) `
issue an order identifying the corrective actions that must /
1 be made within a specified time period to bring the use or
structure into compliance with the official controls, or (2) r
notify the responsible party to apply for an after -the -fact
permit/development approval within a specified period of
time not to exceed 30 -days.
12.26 If the responsible party does not appropriately I
respond to the Zoning Administrator within the specified I
period of time, each additional day that lapses shall
constitute an additional violation of this Ordinance and I
shall be prosecuted accordingly. The Zoning Administrator
shall also upon the lapse of the specified response period
notify the landowner to restore the land to the condition
which existed prior to the violation of this Ordinance.
SECTION 13.0 AMENDMENTS
The flood plain designation on the Official Zoning Map shall
not be removed from flood plain areas unless it can be shown
that the designation is in error or that the area has been
filled to or above the elevation of the regional flood and
is contiguous to lands outside the flood plain. Special
exceptions to this rule may be permitted by the Commissioner
of Natural Resources if he determines that, through other
measures, lands are adequately protected for the intended
use.
All amendments to this Ordinance, including amendments to
the Official Zoning Map, must be submitted to and approved
by the Commissioner of Natural Resources prior to adoption.
Changes in the official Zoning Map must meet the; Federal
Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Technical C nditions
and Criteria and must receive prior FEMA approval before
adoption. The Commissioner of Natural Resources must be
given 10 -days written notice of all hearings to consider an
amendment to this ordinance and said notice shall include a
draft of the ordinance amendment or technical study under
consideration
0
Council Agenda - 5/14/90
15. Consideration of Zoninq Ordinance Amendment reducing
"convenience food" parking requirement. Applicant, Shinqobee
Builders. (J.O.)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on this matter
and recommends approval of the proposed amendment outlined
below. Planning Commission reviewed the technical data
showing that the current ordinance requires parking in excess
of the parking demand generated during peak periods
experienced by convenience or "fast food" shops. Following is
the data that the Planning Commission reviewed prior to making
its finding.
Shingobee Builders requests that the City consider amending
the parking requirements associated with convenience food
establishments. The proposed reduction amounts to a
significant reduction in the convenience food parking
requirement and is accomplished by placing the "convenience
food" activity in the same parking requirement category as
restaurants, night clubs, taverns, cafes, and private clubs
serving food and drinks.
Shingobee Builders proposes the development of a Subway
Sandwich Shop directly south of the Tom Thumb store on
Highway 25. Also proposed is a structure to be used for
retail purposes. The retail structure/use meets ordinance
requirements. The Subway Shop portion of the site plan calls
for sufficient parking spaces if one applies the "restaurant"
parking requirement (22 spaces) rather than the "convenience
food" parking requirement (60 spaces). According to the
zoning ordinance, the Subway Sandwich Shop clearly meets the
definition of a convenience food establishment; therefore, it
appeared clear-cut that the sandwhich shop needed 60 parking
spaces. After further investigation, it was found that the
City of Monticello, in years past, has used the "restaurant"
parking requirement when establishing the parking requirements
associated with other "convenience food" establishments,
including Wendy's and McDonalds. In light of this
Information, I contacted the City Planner and researched other
ordinances regulating parking associated with convenience food
activity. What I found out was quite interesting.
It appears that convenience food parking requirements vary
from city to city. Roseville, for instance, requires about
the same number of convenience food parking spaces as is
required by the existing Monticello ordinance. On the other
hand, recent traffic studios indicate that the parking ratio
for restaurants is adequate for convenience food activities;
therefore, there does appear to be a rationale for reducing
Council Agenda - 5/14/90
the convenience food parking requirement based on the traffic
study. It should be noted that a reduction in the convenience
food parking requirement is not necessitated by previous
incorrect application of the ordinance.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Motion to approve ordinance amendment by moving
"convenience food" parking requirements from 3-5 H.
Number of Parking Spaces Required - Section 13. to
Section 19. Amendment based on the finding that:
a. The ordinance amendment is consistent with the
character and geography of the commercial districts
that apply.
b. The amendment will not tend to depreciate the area
and the land values in the area, as studies show
that spillover parking should not be a problem.
The need for the change in the ordinance has been
sufficiently demonstrated. The existing parking
requirement for convenience food activity is
excossive.
According to the City Planner, it appears reasonable to
reduce the parking requirement for convenience food
activities as proposed, as such a reduction is consistent
with a, b, and c above.
In addition, the City has incorrectly applied the
proposed standard in years past, and parking problems do
not appear to have resulted. By the same token, Wendy's
has not experienced terrific business activity, and
McDonalds did expand their parking after the original
development.
Motion to deny ordinance amondment as proposed.
The proposal to reduce the parking requirements for
convenience food activity is reasonable according to
traffic studies. At the same timo, however, the
amendment takes convenience food parking requirements
from one extreme to the other. City Council might wish
to consider an amendment that is slightly less extreme.
25
Council Agenda - 5/14/90
If Council selects this alternative, the Subway Shop
parking would be insufficient, which would require a
variance; or the establishment could provide "proof of
parking," which would indicate a parking expansion area
that would be accessible should parking become a problem
under the current site plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is somewhat uncomfortable with the degree by which the
ordinance will be amended. Lessening the requirement too far
may result in parking problems that would be difficult to
reverse. At the same time, however, it does appear that the
convenience food parking requirement as proposed is
justifiable given the results of fast food parking demand
study. Staff agrees with Planning recommendation that the
ordinance be amended as proposed.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of proposed ordinance amendment, Copy of Subway Shop site
plan, copy of fast food parking study.
26
Existing Ordinance
13. DRIVE-IN ESTABLISHMENT AND CONVENIENCE FOOD (move to 19):
At least one (1) parking space for each fifteen (15)
square feet of gross floor area, but not less than
fifteen (15) spaces.
19. RESTAURANTS, CAFES, PRIVATE CLUBS SERVING FOOD AND/OR
DRINKS, BARS, TAVERNS, NIGHTCLUBS:
At least one (1) space for each forty (40) square feet of
gross floor area of dining and bar area and one (1) space
for each eighty (80) square feet of kitchen area.
Proposed Ordinance
13. DRIVE-IN ESTABLISHMENT:
At least one (1) parking space for each fifteen (15)
square feet of gross floor area, but not less than
fifteen (15) spaces.
19. RESTAURANTS, CAFES, PRIVATE CLUBS SERVING FOOD AND/OR
DRINKS, BARS, TAVERNS, NIGHTCLUBS, CONVENIENCE FOOD:
At least one (1) space for each forty (40) square feet of
gross floor area of dining and bar area and one (1) space
for each eighty (80) square feet of kitchen area.
6
BF
FAST FOOD RESTAURANT WITH DRIVE-IN WINDOW (836)
Peak Parking Spaces Occupied vs: 1,000 GROSS SQUARE FEET
LEASABLE AREA
Ona: WEEKDAY
PARKING GENERATION RATES
Average
Range of Standard Number of Average 1,000 GSF
1
Rate
Rates Deviation Studies Leasab(o Area
9195
3,55-15.92 3.41 to 3
Cz
DATA PLOT AND EOUATION
CAUTION—USE CAREFULLY—LOW R'.
44
42-
n
L)
w
40-
a:
38 -
Cl
36-
0
(A
w
34-
U
0<
32-
'b XA,-.<N
30 -
Z
28-
x
cc
26 -
24
22
w
0-
20-
tt
i 1 U
0
CL
18-
16-
14
1
2 3 4 5 G
'7
x = 1000 GIIOSS SOUARE FEETLEASABLE AIIEA
1:1
ACTUAI, UAIA POINIS - Fl I I r.0 CUIM:
Filled Cuivo Equaliow 13 d 1.95(X) 1 20.0
St
n' • 0.038
ilar*,nq 0—mmson. Auquif 108711fistitula of Itanaportallon
Council Agenda - 5/14/90
16. Consideration of ordinance amendment deletinq surety bond
requirements for on -sale liquor license applicants. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As part of the 1989 legislative session, the requirements
under state statutes for issuance of liquor licenses by cities
eliminated the surety bond requirements in the amount of
$3,000. With this deletion, a local unit of government is not
required to obtain a surety bond in the amount of $3,000 and
submit this bond to the Liquor Control Division before issuing
an on -sale liquor license.
City Ordinance 3-2-3 (B) and (C) pertaining to the surety bond
requirements can be deleted from our ordinance to correspond
with the nPw state requirements.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the ordinance amendment deleting the surety bond
requirements.
2. Do not amend the ordinance.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Since originally the $3,000 surety bond was a requirement of
the state before we could issue a liquor license, the City had
no choice but to require this of all applicants. Since the
state has now deleted this requirement, staff recommends that
our ordinances be amended to also delete this requirement.
All applications for on -sale retail licenses shall still file
with the City and the state a certificate of liability
insurance in an amount not less than $300,000, which should
adequately protect the public.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of ordinance amendment proposed.
27
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO HEREBY ORDAINS that ordinance
Sections 3-2-3 (B) and (C) pertaining to liquor license surety bond
requirements be deleted in its entirety.
Adopted this 14th day of May, 1990.
Mayor
City Administrator
Council Agenda - 5/14/90
Wine/3.2 Beer Combination, On -sale (fee $500)
Renewal
1. Dino's Deli
Set-up License (fee $275)
1. Country Club
2. Rod and Gun
Club Licenses (fee --set by Statute based on membership)
1. V.F.W.--$500
2. American Legion --$650
Binqo, Temporary (fee $20)
1. St. Henry's Fall Festival
Gamblinq, Temporary ($20 per device)
1. St. Henry's Fall Festival
2. Rod and Gun Club --Steak Fry --August 10 6 18
A single motion approving these licenses should read similar to, "I
move that the following licenses be approved effective July 1,
1990."
There is no supporting data for this item.
,
�d
29
0
Council Agenda - 5/14/90
17. Consideration of grantinq annual approval for municipal licenses.
(R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
In the past, you have renewed the licenses listed below in a single
motion. I believe that the motion has been a contingent motion
such that licenses are approved depending upon successful
completion of the application, approval at the state level, eLC.
The licenses submitted for your consideration are as follows:
Intoxicatinq Liquor, On -sale (fee $3,750)
Renewals
1. Monticello Liquor, Inc.
2. Silver Fox
3. Joyner's Lanes
4. Stuart Hoglund --Comfort Inn
Intoxicatinq Liquor, On -sale, Sunday (fee $200 --set by Statute)
Renewals
1. Monticello Liquor, Inc.
2. Silver Fox
3. Joyner's Lanes
4. VFW Club
S. American Legion Club
6. Comfort Inn
Non -intoxicating Malt, On -sale (fee $275)
1. Rod and Gun
2. Pizza Factory
3. Country Club
Non-Intoxicatinq Malt, Off -sale (foe $75)
Renowals
1. Monticello Liquor
2. Rivorroad Plaza
3. Maus Foods
4. Rivor Torraco
5. Tom Thumb
6. Holiday
7. Plaza Car Wash
28
Council Agenda - 5/14/90
18. Consideration of sale of excess riqht-of-way at the
intersection of service drive and East County Road 39
adjoining Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 19, Block 3, Hoglund Addition.
(J.S.)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At an earlier meeting, the City Council discussed the possible
sale of unneeded right-of-way created during the development
of the new Service Drive and new County Road 39 East. The
Council directed the staff to meet with each of the affected
pruperLy owners to see if each of them would wish to purchase
the right-of-way created by the extension of their lot lines
to the service drive and EasL County Road 39. The purchase
price was to be $.25 per square foot plus the cost of drafting
descriptions and transfer of property.
If not all of the property owners were interested in
purchasing right-of-way, the City would offer to sell the
entire piece to any of the adjoining property owners. There
was some discussion that the City might wish to keep the
little portion of right-of-way adjoining Lot 1 for the
location of a future City of Monticello sign.
During the past weeks I have had the opportunity to speak to D
all of the property owners except one. Kevin Boynton, the
owner of Lot 1, indicated no interest in the property, as he
was in the process of attempting to sell the property. Leslie
Strong, the owner. of Lot 2, is in the same situation but did
express some interest and would let us know by Monday or be at
the meeting. Their property is currently for sale. Dennis
Taylor, the owner of Lot 3, is not interested in the property,
as there is a significant berm in between his property and the
additional right-of-way, and he has already planted additional
trees for screening in the area. Mr. Alfred Kiel, the owner
of Lot 4, is retired and spends much of his time at a lake
cabin. I have not been able to reach him but will keep
trying. Mr. Darrell Hoikes, the owner of Lot 19, has
expressed an indication in purchasing either the 2,060 square
foot of right-of-way calculated with the extension of his
property lines, or the entire piece of property with or
without the small point of property on the oast and that the
City expressed interest in for a future sign.
Since not all property owners are interested In purchasing
their Individual pieces of property, it may be appropriate to
sell the property to Mr. Heikes. The entire parcel has an
estimated 17,893 square foot and would sell at $4,473.25. If
the City were to keep the most easterly parcel, we would
deduct $326.25, making the sale price $4,147. Mr. Hoikes
would be responsible for the cost of drafting the legal
description and the cost to transfer. We could also sell
Mr. Hoikos only up to Lot 2 if Mr. Strong expresses an
interest and then keep Lot 1 right-of-way for our sign.
30
Council Agenda - 5/14/90
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
' 1. The first alternative would be to sell all of the
property to Mr. Heikes at a cost of $4,473.25 plus
transfer.
2. The second alternative would be to sell all of the
property to Mr. Heikes except the most easterly portion,
which we would keep for a future sign. The cost of the
property sold would be $4,147 plus transfer.
3. The third alternative would be to sell Mr. Heikes the
right-of-way to Lot 2, sell Mr. Strong his right-of-way
for Lot 2, and keep the right-of-way for Lot 1 ourselves
for a future sign.
4. The fourth alternative would be to sell Mr. Heikes only
the 2,060 square feet created by the extension of his lot
lines at an estimated cost of $515.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that the
City Council select alternatives #1, 92, or 03, depending upon
Mr. Strong's interest. If there is some interest in a future
sign at this location, alternatives b2 or Y3 seem most
applicable; and this property would not be usable to
Mr. Heikes or Mr. Strong. I do think that any decision should
be contingent upon notification to Mr. Kiel and his
unwillingness to purchase additional right-of-way.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the letter from Mr. Holkes; Copy of the map showing
proposed right-of-way sale to adjoining property owner.
31
I
2000 Victory Memorial Drive
Minneapolis, Mn 55412
(612)522-2034
May 10, 1990
City of Monticello
Monticello, Mn 55392
Attention: Rick Wolfsteller
In reference to the strip of land adjoining my property
Lot 19, Block 3, Hoglund Addition, I am willing to
accept your offer for the entire strip at .250 per
sq. foot.
51n erely,
—D.,yC. Heikes
�_ - e J-�rP,•w;c+�'� c p;_ �_d, ee- `" ixa� 4: .:ya..c, �ermrrr ^ .. .r .-
•.Ss�C `sem! vT:r� _ _ __�-- _ -_ - _-�.il..- —._ ��.'_ -_- _ C' _.1, _ i�
s/ _ - -XCsS =RAJ _ SA
SS/PP/ - MA`(_ I4, ICl A CAST IRON MONUMENT
AT SECTION CORNER
7 hoot ti�N R2
vNO I1 z �7 a
/ 6 13 ;IB
9
c 2� N�
0R/ f <
AZA 3 4 .
r ;SP-kq
I".
400/ 1 v� SEE
J 19 2oa0r 3eVSi 3 T,ON v N TA/
r� Cp�VE I Z6
-,25 1. So. S60.5 \
�NfpVJEW / s� 9\_3'1!•.
° p9 - - -'I�/ .pr -1y �• /\ 30 .206.65 E
o'. 0 . _ �� — j9 s�9 9q2"E
- a _3.5g w
��, • g0'b6 39 S 79.0 1' • x
9 3
i � • �,�o C �, •• X71 `•;g no • �- ....\ -- " ;z�.� 1 �
6 IO'T E
N
107'T E _j
P�N o
fJ n h
F 1- N
_ N
> > ~ '� Q
W N C Q y N
W
i
W_ W ya W •01
\ , CA
Council Agenda - 5/14/90
19. Consideration of acceptinq a eortion of the annual sidewalk
report and adoptinq a resolution settino a public hearinq.
(J.S.)
REFERENCE ANr, BACKGROUND:
City staff is currently involved in an annual sidewalk
Inspection to cover the entire city of Monticello. Inspection
criteria are being developed, and the overall report is
expected to be reviewed by the City Council in June. We have
received complaints from Mr. Dennis Seitz about a section of
sidewalk on the west side of Maple Street which runs from
Broadway to 4th Street. We have informed Mr. Seitz that we
were in the process of developing an overall report for the
City Council to review as per Section 8, Chapter 1; of the
City's ordinance. Mr. Seitz requested that this sidewalk be
brought before the City Council immediately, as it has been in
poor shape for some time.
By referring to the City ordinance, one can see that the
proper procedure set forth is that the Public works Director
or his authorized representative perform an annual inspection
and prepare a report for the City Council. If the City
Council believes that any sidewalk Is in such disrepair as to
be dangerous to the public travel thereon, the Council will
set a public hearing after a two -weeks' written notice period
to the property owner. At the hearing, the Council can so
order repair or replacement of the existing sidewalk by the
adjoining property owner.
In some cases where short sections of sidewalk are scattered
throughout the town and located in front of private property,
the property owners elect to remove the sidewalk rather than
make repairs. In such cases, the Council may dotermino that
the sidewalk benefits the city at large and may consider
participating in a sidewalk replacement program; however, it
is recommended that such sidewalk replacement programs be
based upon a city-wide report rather than an isolated case,
Enclosed you will find the written report and copies of the
maps indicating the areas that need repair. Along with this
are the Preliminary criteria upon which inspections are based.
Our now inspector, Tom Boso, was instrumental In performing
this inspection and developing the criteria. It does appear
that there aro several areas in need of sidewalk repair that
could be considered dangerous to public travel; therefore, the
Council has just causo to sot a date for a public hearing on
the partial report and send two-wook written notices for the
hearing to be held the day after Memorial Day on May 29.
32
Council Agenda - 5/14/90
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative would be to accept the partial
report and set a date for a public hearing on said report
for May 29 and send written notice to the adjoining
property owners.
2. The second alternative would be to notify the property
owner immediately as to the perceived condition of the
sidewalk and that portions are dangerous to public travel
and provide barricades or warning devices for the areas
which are in extremely poor repair but to hold off on the
public hearing until the completed report is due in June.
3. The third alternative would be to do nothing at this time
and wait until the final report is delivered to the
Council in June to set a public hearing.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Although there is some immediacy to the need to repair the
sidewalk, it may be more appropriate to view an overall report
and discuss options such as sidewalk replacement programs and
criteria for replacement at that time. To lessen the risk
until that time, the City could notify the property owners and
place barricades ae outlined in alternative N2.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of abbreviated sidewalk report concerning only that
section of sidewalk on maple Street from Broadway to 4th
Street; Photographs are available at City Hall for your
review.
33
CITY OF MONTICELLO
PARTIAL SIDEWALK REPORT
(West side of Maple Street from Broadway to 4th Street)
I. DEFINITION
A pedestrian walkway (either bituminous or concrete) is a
smooth, continuous horizontal plane generally 4 feet to 5 feet
wide, parallel to curb or street driving surface in both
boulevard width and vertical height with a cross -slope of 2%
to 4% to promote water drainage. It should be free of hazards
to pedestrians, bicyclists, and snow removal equipment such
as, but not limited to, cracks, settlements, protrusions, both
horizontal and vertical such as heaved panels (whole or
partial), tree limbs, and overhangs. There should be
pedestrian ramps where sidewall, .-.seta curb on all new and
major restoration construction.
II. CRITERIA AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INSPECTION
A. Continuous --free of cracks other than control and
expansion joints.
LCracks classified in two groups:
1. Sealable --up to three cracks in a panel which run
parallel or perpendicular to the walking surface
less than 3/4" in width which do not intersect and
do not have panel heaving so as to cause an uneven
walking surface. These cracks may be sawcut and/or
cleaned as necessary, then sealed or caulked with
an acceptable latex or silicon concrete sealer in
such a way to make them look like an expansion
joint.
2. Unsealable--cause for replacement
a. Wandering cracks which deviate more than 3"
from a straight line on a 4' panel and 1" on
smaller panels generated from the points of
origin at edges of panel is cause for whole or
partial panel replacement depending on the
location of crack/cracks in the panel.
b. Cracks caused by panel heave which generate a
"lip" or step in the horizontal plane of 1/4"
or more will need repair by whole or partial
panel replacement.
SIDEWALK REPORT: 5/11/90 Pago 1
�J
c. A crack which causes a "crown" in the panel
will be treated in respect to the direction of
the crack.
i) A perpendicular crown of over 1" from the
ends of the panel is cause for
replacement.
ii) A parallel crown of over 1/2" from edges
of panel or in such a way that it retards
water drainage is grounds for panel
replacement.
iii) Cracks and heaving caused by tree roots
may cause additional work to prevent
future damage to replaced panels.
d. Settlements
i) If the settlement is sufficient to trap
water causing puddling or icing of walk
or to retard proper cross -slope (toward
or away from curb based on natural
drainage) it must be replaced.
B. Overhangs and hazards
1. A hazard is considered, but not limited to,
anything which can cause personal injury from
tripping or stumbling such as a "step" in the
horizontal plane or head injuries from overhangs or
protrusion into the vertical planes of the edges of
walk. Rocks and panel chips are examples of
hazards. Trees and stumps at the very edge of
walks may be considered as potential hazards.
SIDEWALK REPORT: 5/11/90 Pago 2
As per City Council's request for inspection and report of
sidewalks in need of repair, I went out to the two -block area of
the west side of Maple Street from Broadway to 4th Street. The
following is a report of that inspection along with recommendations
based on criteria included in this report. The pictures included
in this report are areas of special interest, and items referred to
in the recornmenciation refer to the picture of that number.
Starting at Broadway and working my way south, I found the existing
146 linear feet of sidewalk of the 200 block in very poor
condition. It was made up of small (16" x 16") panels to form the
4 -foot walk_ There were very few panels which were not cracked and
shifted one way or another (see pictures 01-5). There were weeds
and grass growing over the edges and in most of the cracks and
control joints throughout the lengths. Roots from the stump appear
to have heaved the walk up while the tree was alive. This stump
could be a hazard to someone riding a bike on the sidewalk or
anyone walking at night.
On the second half of the block, the sidewalk was made up of two,
2 -foot wide panels. The first 100.5 feet of sidewalk (pictures #6-
10) had cracked and heaved panels with very few good panels.
Picture 08 shows the beginning of a crown effect from either edge
settlement or center heave. At this point, there are a few good
panels (about 6 or 7) on the property side half of the walk, though
they would comprise only about 14 to 28 of the entire walk.
Picture 09 shows an even greater crown; and at this point, the
property s1 de panels are settled so that they slope toward the
property, thus causing improper drainage which should be toward
curb.
Pictures 11-12A demonstrate crown in sidewalk with cracked panels
and walk sloping to the outside edges from the center. Picture
012A shows breakup of the last 8 feet to 10 fast of sidewalk on the
block ondirng 9 feet from the back of curb. Pictures 013 and 014
show CBs in line with street 1/2 of sidewalk.
Beginning into the 300 block of Maple Street, the sidewalk begins
12.5 foot behind the curb and is settled, cracked, and overgrown as
shown in picture 015. In the first 65 feet (through 017) of the
walk, the majority of the 2' x 2' panels are cracked and shifted in
one way or another, the worst being a panel shift (approximately
25 feet from the back of the 3rd Street curb) in which one corner
of one panel is 2-1/4" above adjoining panels. Even the section
from the small house walk to the drivoway (an area which appears to
have boon replaced once) is very badly cracked. There is a section
of the driveway crossing missing as can be seen in picture 018.
From the c1 ivoway to the property line, the panels are very badly
cracked end beginning to break up in several areas as can be seen
in pictures 020 and 021. Picture 021 also shows the misalignment
between the walks from one property to the other.
SIDEWALK REPORT: 5/11/90 Pago 3
6
Picture #22 shows a 1 -inch "lip" at the control joint between
panels from either the panel by the tree being forced up or the
driveway settling. Also shown are two cracked panels with
settlement. This is an area which will trap water causing icing of
the walk in the winter.
Items #23-28, with the exception of #24, are all single cracks in
4' x 4' panels and should be able to be saw cut as necessary and
filled/sealed with a latex concrete sealer.
Item #24 is panel shift along the east side of the walk causing a
1/2 -inch "lip." Since neither panel on either side of this "lip"
is cracked, 1/2 panel replacement would be acceptable.
My recommendation would be that due to the cracked, settled, and
heaved condition of the sidewalk along the ::est side of Maple
Street (east side of Block 39), a complete sidewalk removal and
replacement be done with minimum 4" thick concrete for walk and 6"
driveway crossings. Total removal would be 169.5 linear feet along
Lot 6, Block 39, and 177.5 linear feet along Lot 5. In addition to
replacement, I would recommend an additional segment of sidewalk
and pedestrian ramp be added in the northwest quadrant of the
Maple/3rd Street intersection (southeast corner of Block 39). This
would include removal and replacement of a section of curb and
gutter and an addition of about 19.5 feet of 4 -foot wide sidewalk
(78 sq ft). Due to the storm intake on 3rd Street being in line
with the Maple Street sidewalk, the pedestrian ramp should be
placed at the mid -radius point of the curb. Placing a pedestrian
ramp at this spot will cause replacement of a piece of curb which
presently has a crack approximately 6" away from a control joint.
At the time of construction, I feel it would be advisable to remove
the stump along the west side of the walk at Lot 6 (see picture
#4), as it could be a pedestrian hazard.
My recommendations for the sidewalk on the west side of Maple
Street from 3rd Street to 4th Street (east side of Block 28) would
be as follows: The entire existing 146 linear feet of 2' x 2'
panel sidewalk should be removed and replaced due to unsafe and
unmaintainablo condition. In order to maintain the historic
authenticity of the walk, 2 -foot square panels should be allowed
for replacement. The new sidewalk should be aligned and
transitioned to meet the newer 4' panel construction at the south
property line of Lot 6. In addition to the replacement, an
additional 10 linear feet should be added along Maple Street and 18
linear feet along 3rd Street (112 sq ft total) with a pedestrian
ramp at the mid -radius of the southwest quadrant of Maple/3rd
Street (northwest corner of Block 28). Here again the storm intake
on 3rd Street is in line with the sidewalk along Maple and would
cause the pedestrian ramp to be shifted to the mid -radius.
SIDEWALK REPORT: 5/11/90 Page 4
0
P$I PA RED
3/,0190
H
Ler 5
cz
1501 v 3ADSr.
v a n E..e
I J
•DIP IN WALLA
�S101WALA '-'D
_ .. C....A .l YC er MYIl1
{r fwe I Ieu:.I W.D IJ
6[Afi 690wro, 0via foul
OR -Aix. 77 L.F.
—• W::r i0A[ OI
'I7.
CS IY111 11 Y Ir Ni
:L".
C[N11A Ltwl 0A IIID: wA.Y PrD. NArIP
w0.L0 ..IA i0 Or PIADID Ar v11.
r:6W CONS:
J
Nvmws .ND AARO-S INDICI:C P:CTVRE LOCArION .ND Dfi[CTICN OF SNOT
SrJI WA Lw NORiI: Dr Pe w[A Pole
S IDIw.I. [ IrID 1[ re:I lL IS
2 SH -IL
IN
/ roA Del vl w.!M[Ylr.11A tfvw Oi POLE [t I$ P $MILL PANT LS
yr DE.
i DRtrf v.r
Lor ''T&8
510 W. bAD.Dw.I
I Pwr r.:[
� Il�$MV� I I �/•
DIP 1N VAlk �Bbo 15.3 R. Wt.$
• MOST PANIL[ CA.cwKV,
MCA110 AND SNI[IPD
00.3 Lr.
MAPLE ST,
,200 B10
BLOCK 39
I� Mef r PAI, 11 rAAL. fO, Nf IVL'D
AYD fYrlrfD W11. 4AAII GADWrAD
SN CRACKS 16 9. 3 J.
a
0
0
cr
�.
f. J
PREPARIO
3/10/90 NUMBERS AND ARI
ADVS -OTC ArE Pi Ci VRE LOC, TIC. AAa DirEC TI ON Or Swor
LOT 5
ST. HINATY CAINCLIC CWVRCW SIDI—. MIIALtswro—
(N!W Vu- ♦' 0Oe1a TO CLAA)
i
.!T .ic "'�I •EE I�
-1—-`/7 1 ?�
i
taACNS IN TWIE rw0 P,NILI MIS
.AEAINOVID DE CAACHED ,.o SETTLED
SE ALID AND MONI rORED AT CONTROL J0I Nr,
THERE IS S ErILEMENT/ MAIL[ ST.
AEArE ONANOTWIR (300 81"PANEL CIVIING A 1' UP
APPROX. - BLOCK 28
Wm"
EPm r
N6V CONST
.p
Co
D -O
DRIVI VAT —
LOT G
500 W. 3RD. ST.
21 �TREC7 d
GJ/ M
.14
il'T,1 1 I I IS T'R[:J
JL
�t
e1vD. ie rr. �rsDE
SIDI w,I- In.l
Dr Rl1. elTPAIELI
TEP, NELe WI DEI,
Or Vwitw ARE CRAG CAACNED,
NEAT/0 .. eIT Il1O, WrE
Plat UIN& IJITN
W.&I ADN O. CIS LrA-L —
crAkL
GOAee GAOWt-D IN CIACNS,
NL
IS lR LINI VlT- JNI Al1M[
ND Orep EDGES.
Or 11 Dl n, PID D
WOu.O
-,rl TO El PLACID AT n10 ROO
The sidewalk along the church property is in pretty good condition,
and repairs can be made by caulking, with the exception of the
items listed earlier. Replacement of three to four panels
(appror.imately 48-72 sq ft) need replacement at the driveway area
(item #22) and 1/2 or whole panel replacement at item #24 (second
walkway across boulevard). Half panel replacement will be allowed
if the panel is saw cut to give a straight construction joint.
SIDEWALK REPORT: 5/11/90 Pago 5
0
CITY or monT ICELLO
Monthly Building Department Report
Month of APRIL . 19 90
I
PERMITS MID USES
Lent
Sema Month Leet
Year 'Tole
year
PERMITS ISSUED
Month Me rel,
Mon[h April Laet Year To Date
Mo.t
To Deta
RESIDENTIAL
Num bar
B
21
10-5
74
Veluatton
$84.200.00
S 162,300.00 5678,000.00 S 848,100.00
S 721,700.00
Poem
724.61
1,4]6.7)
4,596.89
6,289.00
2.075.203
.+u rche rge.
41.10
77.90
718.65
422.05
155.95
COMMERCIAL
Ilumber
1
5
5
B
7
Ye lust ton
1,500.00
2.477.000.00
22,000.00 1.162,400.06
2,440.000,00
roes
15.00
12.704.69
276.00
6.786.40
12.796.19
Surcharge.
.50
1.216.25
10.50
580.70
1.219.50
INDUSTRIAL
Numbs[
1
3
Va=tr fen
7,500.00
98.600.00
Fee.
94.50
1.091.71
Surcharge.
3.75
49.30
PLUlU INS
Numb.[
,
4
7
11
7
Fee.23.00
127.00
266.00
396.00
196.00
6urchargee
.50
2.00
6.00
5.50
3.50
OTII LRO
Nu mlror
4
1
)
4
Veluatlon
95,000.00
.00
.00
95.000.00
Poen
1,000.80
10.00
70.00
1,080.80
Surcharge.
48.50
.50
1.50
48.50
TOTAL NO. PERMITS
10
35
23
47
55
•`
TOTAL VALUATION
65,700.00
2,697.800.00
660.700.00 2.010.500.00
2.954.900.00
TOTAL rr.F.B
762.61
15.463.72
5,100.69
I
13,501.40
18.039.53
TOTAL SURCBAROr.S
42.10
1.748.60
339.65
1.099.75
1.476.75
I
CURRENT MOIITII
PEES
Rumb.r
to Data
PERMIT NA7vAK
IIIImhe[-
PERMIT OURCIIAROE
Valuation -
Thle Year
Leet Year
BInU1e really
2 S
85).2; S 53.65
S 107,300.00
4
6
It, 1.
0
0
Nulll-f em11Y
0
1
Commar W
4
17.607.49 1.256.75
2.517.500.00
4
0
Indus ter lnl
I
0
R.s. Ca raves
1
50.0( 7.50
5,000.00
7
I
Bluna
0
0
Puhllc nulldinge
0
0
ALTUNATION Oil REPAIR
Dv.111n0.
15
480.5( 70.2!
45.500.00
25
17
Comma rclel
2
45.0( 7.00
4,500.00
4
0
Indn.l r, a,
1
94.5( ).75
7.500.00
2
0
PIAIM BIND
All Type.
4
127.00 2.00
7
11
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
Sao -Ing Poeta
1
117.0(1 5.00
10,000.00
1
O
tl.cA4
3
45.00 ,. SO
4.500.00
3
0
TrxponMY PERMIT
0
0
DEMOLITION
7
20.00 1.00
.00
2
]
TOTAI1
]!
15.447.77 1,168.40
2.697,800.00
55
47
INDIVIDUAL PERMIT AL•IVITY REPORT
Month of APRIL , 1990
PERMIT
DESCRIPTION
TYPE
NAME/LOCATION
NUMBER
90-1456
Deck
AD
Steve Samuelson/225 Prairls Reed
90-1451
Basement flnlah
At,
Pat 6 Leri Meyhoff/2700 Me edov Lane
90-1457
Basement finish
ADEr
Builders/2760 Meador Lena
90-1458
Attached garage
RD
John BOraeh/375 Prelrte Road
90-1459
K -Mart footings G foundatlon walls
C
The Lincoln Companies/200 W. 7th St.
90-1460
Beaement finish
AD
Dirk Westveer/b Center Circle
90-1461
House raroof
AD
Rayne Seestrom/110 Washington St.
90-1462
Houae and garage residing
AD
Lloyd Lund/124 Hillcrest Road
90-1463
Interior remodel
AI
Bunny rrelh roma, Inc./206 W. nth et.
90-1464
Building rermt
AC
Paul B]Orklund/254 West Broadway
90-1465
Besamsnt finish
AD
Scott 6 Cindy Hogg/227 Crocus Lane
90-1466
Heuae reahingle
ADJack
6 Barbara L-/827 W. Broedrey
90-1467
3 •aason porch
AD
Vl rgtl L Eunice Kalpin/100 Badmen Lena
90-1468
House reahingle
AD
Don Nagel/524 C. River Bt.
90-1469
Playground structure
MISC
Monticello Public Schools/1110 W. Oroadray
90-147.
House demolltton
AD
city Ot Monticello/910 M1nna4ota 8t.
90-1471
Ilousa L garage reroof
AD
Russell G Viola Bell/710 W. River BL.
90-1472
flack
AD
Ii 6 Gwen Corrigan/779 Aeon Circle
90-1473
House f garage
Sr
BL11 Builders/2001 Oakvlew Irons
90-1474
Car wash
C
Investor• Together/1537 C. Broedrey
90-1475
3 ries- porch
AO
Judy Stokes/1502 W. Rlvar St.
90-1476
House 6 garage reshingle
AD
Lore 11 BevereoN 1010 E. R1 ver Bt.
90-1477
4 season porch
AD,
ftiLh/109 Craig Ione
90-1478
Basement llnlsh
AD
Mlchael Weetphall/105 Rodsan Lane
90-1479
Into riot remodel
AC
A.E. Michaels Decorating/118 C. Broadway
90-1480
Deck
ADPatrlol•
Schwan/103 Hl hereat Road
90-1401
House 6 garage
aP
Value Plus He.../223 Crocus lana
90-1482
Window
AD
Jerry 6 reren Wells/613 E.River at.
90-1483
In -ground Pool
AD
Dennis Ralerson/2 Center Circle
90-1484
Bullding 4-I tlon
A]
Bunny hash roods, Ino./409 Walnut St.
90-1440
K -Mart, above foundation only
C
Th. Lincoln Campanles/300 W. 7th St.
PEE=
VALUATION
DERMIS SURCHARGE PLUMBING SURCHARGE
1,500.00 S 15.00 S.50 5 S
1,500.00 15.00 .50
2,000.00 20.001.00
5,000.00 50.00 7.50
351,600.00 1,520.10 175.60
1,500.00 15.00 .50
1,500.00 15.00 .50
9,500.00 112.50 4.75
7,500.00 94.50 7.75
1,500.00 15.00 .50
1,500.00 15.00 .50
1,500.00 15.00 .50
4,000.00 40.00 7.00
1,500.00 15.00 .70
85,000.00 572.00 42.50
.00 10.00 .50
1,500.00 15.00 .5.50
1,500.00 15.00 0
54,700.00 792.06 27.35 27.00 .50
117,100.00 685.35 56.55 70.00 .50
4,000.00 40.00 2.00
1,500.OD 15.00 .50
11,000.00 126.00 5.50
1,500.00 15.00 .50
7,000.00 70.00 1.50
1,500.00 15.00 .50
52,600.00 303.58 26.70 23.00 .50
1,500.00 15.00 .50
10,000.00 117.00 5.00
.00 10.00 .50
1,963,800.00 5,667.10 981.417 51.00 .50
TOTALS 1-2.697,800.00 9.890.:1 1.366.40 127.00 2.00
TOTAL REVENUE 516.792.12
INDIVIDUAL PERMIT ACTIVITY REPORT
Month of APRIL
PERMIT
DESCRIPTION
TYPE
NAME/LJXATION
VALUATION - EE ES
PERMIT SURCHARGE PLUMBING SURCHARGE
NUMBER
PUN REVIEW
90-1.59
K-Mari footing& 6 foundation Valla
C
The Lincoln Compania./300 W. 7th St.
4988.06
90-1468
Playground structure
C
MontiCsllo Public School./1110 W. Broadway
]71.80
90-1173
Rus. G pa rage
BE
13LH Bulldere/3001 Oakvisw Ln.
39.21
90-1174
Co., waan
C
Inw.aso * Toq*th.dl517 E. Broadway
445.47
90-1481
House i garapa
8P
Va lua PIU. Herne./223 Crocus Lane
30.36
90-1440
K-Ma rt, above foundation only
C
The Lincoln Companies/300 W. 7th St.
7.757.61
TOTAL PLAN REVIEW
5.636.51
TOTAL REVENUE 516.792.12
1990 PUBLIC NUISANCE REPORT May 11, 1990
(CONTRACT MOWING =
Woods/wass haight 0 0 0
TOTAL 0 0 0
JAN FEB MAR
/.PRIL
MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC
CITY PUBLIC NUISANCE LETTER
NC licensed vehicle
21
74
4
NC licensed immovable vehicle
0
1
0
Licensed immovable vehicle
5
9
6
ROluse/debris
14
18
1
Household appliance
0
2
0
Woods/grass height
0
1
0
Other
1
3
1
TOTAL
41
108
12
PUBLIC NUISANCE COMPLIED
NC licensed vehicle
0
61
15
NC licensed immovable vehicle
0
1
0
Licensed immovable vehicle
0
8
1
Refuse/debris
0
23
2
Household appliance
0
1
0
Woods/grass height
0
1
0
Other
0
5
1
TOTAL
0
100
19
PUBLIC NUISANCE APPEAL
NC licensed vehicle
0
0
0
NC licensed immovable vehicle
0
0
0
Licensed immovable vehicle
0
0
1
Roluso/dobris
0
0
0 _
Household appliance _
0
0
0
Woods/grass height
0
0
a
Other
0
0
0 _
TOTAL
0
0
1
W.C. SHERIFF DEPT. TICKET
NC licensed vehicle
0
15
4
NC licensed immovable vehicle
0
0
0
Licensed Immovable vehicle
0
2
0 _
Roluse/dobris
0
6
2
Household appliance
0
0
1
Other
0
0
0
TOTAL
0
23
7
(CONTRACT MOWING =
Woods/wass haight 0 0 0
TOTAL 0 0 0