Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
City Council Agenda Packet 06-10-1996
AGENDA REGULAR MELTING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday, June 10, 1996 - 7 pm Mayor. Brad Fyle Council Members: Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst, Brian Stumpf, Tom Perrault 1. Call to order. Ita 2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held May 28, 1996. P 5 S 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. A. Consideration of a request to discuss policy regarding letters to the editor. B. Discussion on Township proposal to install a culvert on Gillard Avenue. C. Consideration of a request for reconsideration of allowing a staged odor control plan for Mississippi Shores. 4. Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints. 6. Consent agenda. A. Consideration of appointing an HRA Commissioner. B. Consideration of appointment to vacancy on Police Commission. C. Consideration of granting annual approval for municipal licenses. D. Consideration of accepting bid fbr liquor store painting. -�Z J Consideration of petition for extension of water main to the Bondhus Manufacturing facility on East County Road 76. F. Consideration of approval of a preliminary replat of the Monticello -Big Lake Hospital District and Mississippi Shores property. Applicant, Monticollo•Big Lake Hospital. G. Consideration of an ordinance amendment which would allow ground floor elevations to be placed at an elevation less than 1 ft above the street elevation when positive drainage is achieved. Applicant, Willi Hahn Corporation. Agenda Monticello City Council June 10, 1996 Page 2 H. Consideration of an ordinance amendment which would eliminate curb constriction requirements where curbing would be impacted by planned parking lot expansion. Applicant, Monticello Planning Commission. Consideration of an ordinance amendment that would allow one storage shed per residential property in addition to an accessory building. Applicant, Monticello Planning Commission. 1y(i d. Consideration of allowing native grass plantings on a portion of a rear yard. Applicant, Bob Grabinski. K Consideration of appointment to vacancy on Library Board. 6. Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit which would allow operation of a car wash in a B-3 zone. Applicant, Dan and Linda Mielke. 7. Consideration of a conditional use permit which would allow operation of a coffee shop and delicatessen. Applicant, Sandra Johnson and Marlin Beeler. 8. Consideration of proposal by Masonic Lodge to transfer maintenance and operation of Riverside Cemetery to the City. 9. Consideration of repainting the old water tower. 10. Consideration of establishing a moratorium on construction of accessory buildings in residential districts where an attached garage is present. 11. Adjournment. MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, May 28, 1998.7 p.m. Members Present: Brad Fyle, Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst, Brian Stumpf, Tom Perrault Members Absent: None Approval of minutegi of thp.sopnnl Board of Review mep ingh lea May 8. Le special mpetin¢s h Id at 5:.10 and R n m on May VA and the recoil r mep iag held May 13 1996. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHUMEY ANDERSON AND SECONDED BY TOM PERRAULT TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 8,1998, SPECIAL MEETING. Voting in favor. Shirley Anderson, Tom Perrault, Brad Fyle, Brian Stumpf. Abstaining: Clint Herbst. Motion passed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON AND SECONDED BY TOM PERRAULT TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETINGS HELD AT 5:30 AND 6 P.M. AND THE REGULAR MEETING HELD AT 7 P.M. ON MAY 13, 1996. Motion carried unanimously. None. Mau A. Tim Brion described a street route for moving a home out of Monticello and requested permission from Council to use the proposed route. He noted that the move will take place on Monday, June 3, between 4 a.m, and 5 a.m. in order to be less disruptive to traffic. Wright County deputies will also escort the move. It was Cho consonsus of Council to authorize Brion to move the home using the proposed route. ., 1. „1 Q. Wanda Kraemer, representing the MCP Promotions Committee, presented a short program announcing the Pathway Grand Opening, which will take place on Saturday. June 1, 1996. Page 1 9 Council Minutes - 5/28/96 Consent ag n a. Mayor Brad Fyle requested that item 5D be removed from the consent agenda for discussion. A. Conoid ration ofa remh2tonn authnriziny the ias»Anoe of C_O_ improv mPnt hnnda sand refunding bonds, Recommendation: Adopt the resolutions authorizing the sale of three separate bond issues as described. SEE RESOLUTIONS 96-21, 96.22, and 96-23. B. Con-aideratinn of liquor store Night/Weekend Supervisor annnintmnnt. Recommendation: Approve the appointment of Ms. Tracy Eisele to the position of Night/Weekend Supervisor at the liquor store, which replaces the previous Assistant Manager position. C. Con Fdde ration ofa + .horizine advertisement for hida for brick_ renes and sealing—city}hill. 1Recommendation: Authorize advertisement for bids for brick repair and replacement at city hall. D. Co aid ra ion ofa +the ' 2insr ndvPrtiAPrnPnt for bi a for overlav�nn commuter parking lot and exp nnion of puhlie works hullding parking Ld. Removed from consent agenda for discussion. E. Consideration of a resolution accepting plana and anP 'ora .io a nd authoririno ndv iaemant for bids -Briar O kPa Estate 2nd Addition and River Stregi aanild= newer co a ruetion,pnd rnaid ration of adopting a resolution a o ina intent n reimlwrm thn .ity for Briar Oakes Eginte 2nd Ad 'tion g1rQJct. costs. Recommendation: Adopt a resolution accepting plans and specifications and authorizing advertisement for bids for Briar Oakes Estate 2nd Addition and River Street sanitary sewer reconstruction; and adopt a resolution stating intent to reimburse the City for Briar Oakes Estate 2nd Addition project costs. SEE RESOLUTIONS 96-24 and 96.25. Conaideratinnofndophngdnvnlnpm nt nnd iah— m ntanmP_itnt-ta end approving finnl plat•• lnin F rma 2nd Addi inn. Recommendation: Adopt the disbursement and development agreements for the IQein Farms 2nd Addition contingent on review and approval by the City Attorney, and approve the final plat for Rein Farms 2nd Addition contingent on final review of construction casement requirements. Approval of plans and specifications is contingent on approval by the public works department. Page 2 (D Council Minutes - 5/28/96 A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STUMPF AND SECONDED BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON TO APPROVE ITEMS 5A, 5B, 5C, 5E, AND BF OF THE CONSENT AGENDA AS RECOMMENDED. Motion carried unanimously. DISCUSSION OF ITEM REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA: 5D. Gonaid .ration of authorizing ndvertiaament for bi A for overlayiw commuter y * ing lot and eznan-pion nfpuhlic wor a b +il ing,garking id. Public Works Director John Simola reported that $25,000 was included in the 1993 city budget for overlaying the commuter parking lot. Due to the cost of the project, staff approached the County for financial assistance because they are the fee title holder of the property-, however, the County was not interested in funding the project. In regard to the public works complex, Simola noted that paving of the east side was completed in 1996; however, some parking area was lost with the addition of phase II, and expansion of the parking lot was needed to add spaces to the west of the office building. In addition, an overlay of the 20 -year-old pavement was also requested. Mayor Fyle stated his support for overlaying the commuter parking lot; however, it was his view that additional work at the public works complex should be deferred for a year or two. Councilmembers discussed the two projects, and it was suggested that both projects be advertised for bide to get an idea of the cost, and the public works pavement could be deleted from the project after bids are received if it was felt that it should be re -bid and completed at a later date. A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STUMPF AND SECONDED BY CLINT HERBST TO AUTHORIZE ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR OVERLAYING THE COMMUTER PARKING LOT AND OVERLAYING THE BITUMINOUS AREA AROUND THE OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS AND EXPANSION OF THE PARKING AREA, WITH THE ADDITION OF CURBING. COUNCIL MAY DELETE THE PUBLIC WORKS OVERLAYING AND PARKING LOT EXPANSION DEPENDING ON BID PRICES. Motion carried unanimously. Page 3 0 Council Minutes - 5/28/98 Jerry Kramber, City Assessor, reviewed the parcels that his firm re- evaluated as authorized at the May 8 Board of Review meeting. Jeff Francis, owner of parcel # 155-070-002040, reported that he purchased his home in September 1995 for $147,388. The City Assessor a re-evaluation lowered the original valuation from $169,600 to $168,800; however, Francis questioned how the valuation could increase 5% in only four months' time. It was his view that the value of the home should be based on what the market will bear. Assessor Jerry Kramber noted that he discussed this parcel with County Assessor Doug Gruber, and both felt the reduction to $158,800 was fair and was comparable with others in the area. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRAD FYLE AND SECONDED BY TOM PERRAULT TO APPROVE THE CITY ASSESSOR'S VALUATION OF $168,800 FOR PARCEL 11166-070.002040. Voting in favor: Brad Fyle, Tom Perrault. Opposed: Clint Herbst, Shirley Anderson, Brian Stumpf. Motion failed. AFTER ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY CLINT HERBST AND SECONDED BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON TO DECREASE THE VALUATION FOR PARCEL #155-070.002040 TO $164,400. Motion was based on the valuation being lowered slightly this year with the intention that it will again increase with next year's evaluation of properties. Voting in favor: Clint Herbst, Shirley Anderson, Brian Stumpf. Opposed: Brad Fyle, Tom Perrault. Motion passed. AFTER REVIEW OF THE REMAINING PARCELS ON THE CITY ASSESSOR'S REPORT, A MOTION WAS MADE BY CLINT HERBST AND SECONDED BY TOM PERRAULT TO APPROVE THE FOLLOWING PARCEL VALUATIONS: PARCEL N 155-033-001350 APPROVED VALUATION Reduced from $90,900 to $88,100 165-014.003180 Reduced from $160,600 to $149,000 155-069-003050 Reduced from $91,100 to $88,300 155-035.004120 Reduced from $102,500 to $97,800 155-010.081010 Reduced t%om $90,700 to $77,200 165-021.002430 Reduced from $163,000 to $146,900 155-048.002060 Reduced from $118,800 to $107,300 165.036.001020 Reduced f1om $102,600 to $97,900 Pago 4 0 Council Minutes - 5/28/96 PARCEL 9 155-035-001030 APPROVED VALUATION Reduced from $101,700 to $97,000 155-035-001050 Reduced from $102,500 to $97,800 155-035-001060 Reduced from $102,500 to $97,800 155-035-001070 Reduced from $101,900 to $97,200 155-035-001080 Reduced from $102,500 to $97,800 155-035-001090 Reduced from $102,500 to $97,800 155-035-001100 Reduced from $102,500 to $97,800 155-035-003090 Reduced from $108,200 to $103,900 155-035-004100 Reduced from $103,200 to $98,500 155-035-004110 Reduced from $102,500 to $97,800 Motion carried unanimously. Council then discussed renewing the assessing contract with Kramber ik Associates for the 1996.1997 assessment year. It was noted by City Administrator Wolfsteller that the current contract rate was set at $5.75 per parcel in 1992. Due to the growing number of building permits the City has experienced and due to the cost of living increases since 1992, Krambers requested an increase in their contract to $6.50 per parcel. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY CLINT HERBST AND SECONDED BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON TO RENEW THE CITY ASSESSING CONTRACT WITH KRAMBER & ASSOCIATES FOR $6.25 PER PARCEL. Motion carried unanimously. Assistant Administrator Jeff O'Neill reported that in January the Council gave conceptual approval of connecting Kjellbergs East Mobilo Home Park to city services contingent on a number of conditions, which were incorporated into the proposed development agreement for connection to the city sanitary sewer system; however, O'Neill noted that the option of allowing Nellberg to move trailers in prior to completion of the work if funds were placed on deposit with the City was not included in the development agreement on the advice of City Attorney Paul Weingarden. It was Weingarden's view that it would be best to require Kjollberg to complete all of the work before allowing homes to be moved in. Weingarden noted that it may be difficult to install the required improvements on private property oven if the City has the money through a disbursement agreement. O'Neill suggested that if Council was inclined to allow Kjellberg to move homes in before the work is done, Page 6 0 Council Minutes - 5/28/96 Council should consider allowing Kjellberg to move homes in only after the grading is completed in addition to funds being set aside in a disbursement agreement to cover the rest of the improvements. Kent Kjellberg noted his concern regarding paragraph 12a on page 8 of the development agreement, which limited his ability to sell the mobile home park. It was the consensus of Council to authorize an amendment to paragraph 12a of the development agreement, with final language to be defined by the City Attorney. Kjellberg also requested that paragraph l lb be amended to coordinate payment of bills with final approval of the project. It was his view that he shouldn't have to pay until they are ready to move homes into the area. The Assistant Administrator explained that at the time the development agreement is executed, all costs to date would be assembled and billed to Kjellberg, after which time Kjellberg would be responsible for paying any additional costs associated with the City Engineer and other review of the work being completed. Nellberg requested that the option of entering into a disbursement agreement with the City be added to the development. O'Neill explained to Kjellberg that the amount that would need to be act aside with the disbursement agreement would be the total cost to complete the project plus 15'x. In addition, it was noted by City staff that Kjellberg must place an additional deposit with the City before additional engineering review of the project. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STUMPF AND SECONDED BY BRAD FYLE T'O ADOPT THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR CONNECTION OF THE KJELLBERG EAST MOBILE HOME PARK AND EXPANSION AREA TO CITY SANITARY SEWER, WITH THE AMENDMENT TO THE LANGUAGE IN PARAGRAPH 12a, ASSIGNMENT CLAUSE, TO BE DEFINED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. MOTION INCLUDES AUTHORIZATION TO ESTABLISH A DISBURSEMENT AGREEMENT THAT WOULD ENABLE HOMES TO BE MOVED ON SITE PRIOR TO COMPLETION OF REQUIRED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. DISBURSEMENT AGREEMENT FUNDS ARE TO BE IN AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE COST OF THE PROJECT PLUS 15%. Voting in favor: Brian Stumpf, Brad Fylo, Shirley Anderson, Tom Perrault. Opposed: Clint Herbst. It was Herbst's view that the project should be completed prior to allowing homes to be moved in. Motion passed. Page 6 0 Council Minutes - 5/28/96 Economic Development Director 011ie Koropchak explained that the proposed contract for private redevelopment among the HRA, City, and Cedrus Creek Craftsman, Inc., described the amount, method of delivery, and the timing of the tax increment finance (TIF) payment to the Redeveloper, as well as the obligations of the Redeveloper, HRA, and the City. Koropchak went on to summarize the contract. She noted that the 2nd Addition of the project was proposed as a TIF district, with the HRA providing financial assistance for purchase of the parcels on which the Redeveloper would construct 10 townhouse units. In regard to the City - owned parcel proposed for the 3rd Addition, the HRA proposed to purchase the parcel for $40,000, with $26,000 payable at closing and $15,000 pursuant to a 5 -year non-interest note. The HRA would then convey the lot to the Redeveloper for $1. The $26,000 payment to the City would be taken from the HRA general fund with the intent to satisfy the "local contribution" necessary to exempt the TIF district from local HACA penalties. Koropchak explained that the City would then be able to reimburse the County $12,049.21 for outstanding taxes and other costs relating to this parcel. Lastly, the contract stated that the HRA intended to acquire the 1400 West Broadway Parcel (the 4th Addition) for transfer to the City for use as public green space or park, which would satisfy the City's park dedication requirements. Koropchak noted that previous Council action on May 13 required that the developable areas of this parcel be developed rather than used as green space; however, the Redeveloper has noted that this would be economically unfeasible. Councilmomber Herbst noted that even though the project appeared to be a good one, he expressed concern with using tax dollars to create a TIF district, clean up parcels, and then give the parcels to a developer. It was also his view that the parcels included in the 2nd Addition were not blighted and should not be designated as a TIF district. He noted that all of the lots would increase in value once the blight at 1400 West Broadway was eliminated. Mark Ruff of Publicorp explained that the HRA evaluated the area, noting that more than 60% of the buildings were blighted. In addition, the proposed development would produce $50,000 in now tax revenues outside of the TIF district, which would be much more than the 2.3 homes now on the tax rolls. Tax revenue fiem 10 of the 29 now homes on the project would be included in the TIF program. Pago 7 0 Council Minutes - 5/28/96 HRA Chair AI Larson stated that after considerable research of the coat of condemnation proceedings and relocation, in addition to many meetings discussing the proposed development, the HRA felt this proposal was a win/win situation for the City and the neighborhood. The HRA also felt this development would meet the goal of increasing the amount of upscale housing in the community as noted at a previous joint planning meeting. He noted that the TIF is used for gap financing and would be paying for the coat to acquire and demolish the homes that stand in the way of an integrated, high-value development. Wright County Commissioner Pat Sawatzke stated that the County Board is not generally in favor of tax increment financing for residential development because the County doesn't always capture enough to pay for County services. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STUMPF AND SECONDED BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT AMONG THE HRA, CITY, AND CEDRUS CREEK CRAFTSMAN, INC., WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THE HRA PAY THE CITY UPFRONT FOR THE FULL COST OF THE GELLE PARCEL. Voting in favor: Brian Stumpf, Shirley Anderson, Tom Perrault, Opposed: Clint Herbst and Brad Fyle. Motion passed. SEE RESOLUTION 96-26. Assistant Administrator O'Neill reported that after revisions were reviewed at a special meeting of the City Council, the comprehensive plan was returned to the Planning Commiasion for final review and public hearing. The Monticello Township also reviewed the plan in detail and supported the plan. In addition, O'Neill noted that the Planning Commission elected to provide the Orderly Annexation Area (OAA) Board a chance to review and comment on the plan. At the OAA meeting on May 3, there were no objections to the plan, but there were a number of insightful comments made by County Planner Tom Salkowski, who provided a written roview of the plan for the OAA. Planning Commission Chair Dick Frie added that tare Commission discussed at length the OAA and County comments and felt it was good information for future reference during implementation of the comprehensive plan. Page 8 �/ Council Minutes - 5/28196 AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STUMPF AND SECONDED BY CLINT HERBST TO ADOPT THE UPDATE TO THE MONTICELLO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Motion is based on the finding that the comprehensive plan reflects the City's goals and objectives with regard to community development. Motion carried unanimously. 10. Consideration of advertisement for hide for repainting of old water tower. Public Works Director John Simola reported that the old water tower located downtown was last painted in 1989 and in need of repainting. Council was asked to decide whether to repaint the tank the same aluminum color with a red roof and black lettering estimated at $10,000 or less, or whether to paint the tank with a two-tone appearance estimated to cost between $20,000 to $25,000. Councilmember Herbst noted that Todd Larson requested that Council table this item in order to give the Monticello Community Partners (MCP) a chance to give input on what could be done with the water tower. Larson stated he would have the MCP Design Committee contact John Simola. A MOTION WAS MADE BY CLINT HERBST AND SECONDED BY TOM PERRAULT TO TABLE CONSIDERATION OF ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR REPAINTING THE OLD WATER TOWER UNTIL THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING ON JUNE 10, 1996. Motion carried unanimously. MOW.r:.,, . , ...: t. i a • .,`4M r., 4YMIT City Engineer Bret Weiss reported that during the initial discussion of the feasibility report for the Dundee Road/Fallon Avenue project, the City Council deleted the water main looping on Fallon Avenue due to the estimated cost of $27,000, which the City would have to carry since there would be no immediate benefit to adjoining properties. Weise went on to note that after reviewing bide on the project, the actual construction cost would be approuimately $19,124, including indirect coats, which was close to 30% lower than the feasibility report indicated; therefore, he felt the Council should have a chance to include the water main looping in the project if deaired. Page 9 0 Council Minutes - 5/28/96 AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY TOM PERRAULT AND SECONDED BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON TO APPROVE CHANGE ORDER 01 FOR PROJECT 9RIC, DUNDAS ROAD/FALLON AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS, ADDING 654 FT OF 12 -INCH WATER MAIN TO FALLON AVENUE FOR LOOPING PURPOSES, INCLUDING INDIRECT COSTS, AT AN ESTIMATED $19,124. Motion carried unanimously. 1:11 Ir Y M •1 I : ti 1 : �• 1 ' 1 : Mr r 1 11 I 11 1.1 '1'. 1 City Administrator Rick Wolfsteller reported that he was recently contacted by Gary Didam, District Traffic Engineer for MN/DOT, who asked whether the City of Monticello would be interested in using the City Engineer to continue with preliminary design, final design, and the balance of the engineering work necessary for the proposed improvements for Highway 25, including widening of Highway 25 from I.94 to Kjellbergs, Inc. Due to MN/DOT'e volume of work and lack of personnel, MN/DOT would allow the City to use the City's consultant to prepare the design documents; in addition, they asked the City to do the entire project, including construction management, inspection activities, right-of-way acquisition legwork, and all informational meetings and public hearings necessary for the improvement. MN/DOT felt this would be the best approach to take in order to complete the project in a reasonable amount of time; otherwise, it could take three or four years before construction would occur. Wolfsteller explained that the City would need to enter into a cooperative agreement with MN/DOT stating the exact role of each party and the participation and cost allocation that would be expected from all parties. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY CLINT HERBST AND SECONDED BY TOM PERRAULT TO AUTHORIZE THE CONSULTING ENGINEER TO PREPARE A PROPOSAL FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEINENT OF THE PROPOSED HIGHWAY 25 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR MN/DOT. Motion includes a willingness by the City to enter into a cooperative agreement with MN/DOT that would indicate the City would be the entity managing the overall project for the State. Voting in favor. Clint Herbst, Tam Perrault, Shirley Anderson, Brad Fyle. Opposed: Brian Stumpf. Motion passed. Pago 10 0 Council Minutes - 6/28/96 13. Consideration of approvi_ne hills for the mnn h of Mag, Public Works Director Simola asked that Council approve check #40468 for an amount $110 leas than listed. He indicated check #40468 would be voided and a new check issued. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON AND SECONDED BY TOM PERRAULT TO APPROVE THE BILLS FOR THE MONTH OF MAY. Motion carried unanimously. 14. Other matters. A. Mayor Brad Fyfe noted that there had been a great deal of trespassing on the property adjacent to the fine hall due to the density of the brush. It was the consensus of Council to authorize the Public Works Director to work with the property owner to possibly reduce the density of the brush on the property east of the fire hall. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Karen Doty Office Manager Page 11 9 Council Agenda - 6/10/98 3A. Consideration of a ragt•est ta discung wl_1c31 regarding letters to the editor. (R.W.) At the April 22 meeting, Councilmember Herbst requested that all letters tn the editor written by City staff as City employees be reviewed and approved by the City Council. Although no formal motion was adopted by the Council as a whole, the perception has been that a policy has been adopted requiring all City employees who write letters to the editor and use their title should have the article reviewed by the Council prior to publishing. The request was noted in the minutes of the April 22 meeting, but an official policy has not yet been drafted. If the Council would like this to be completed, it can be brought forward at a future meeting. The purpose of this agenda item was a request by Mr. Don Smith, publisher of the Mnnticelln Timm, that the City Council reconsider its previous action. The arguments to be presented by Mr. Smith are included as supporting data for this item. In a related matter, City Attorney Paul Weingarden has evaluated the proposed letter to the editor policy that may restrict the employees' right to Gee speech, and it is his recommendation that the policy not be formally adopted at this time. A copy of Mr. Weingarden's comments is included for your review. Since this item was requested to be on the agenda by Mr. Smith, the staff does not feel it is in a position to recommend a formal action and is leaving this up to Council direction. As noted earlier, a formal policy has not yet been written, but 1 believe most City employees are currently reluctant to consider letters to the editor at this time until the Council has had a chance to respond to both Mr. Weingarden and Mr. Smith's comments. Lotter from Don Smith; Copy of Monticello Timos opinion page; Copy of 4/22/86 Council minutes; Letter from Paul Weingarden. �y K.4 J.../. f, , THE MONTICELLO TIMES 8 SHOPPER 116 East River Street • P.O. Box 548 • Monticello, MN 55362 • (612) 295-3131 • FAX (612) 295 080 Monticello Times, Inc. • Publisher of the Monticello Times and Shopper • Donald O. Smith, Editor and Publisher June 5, 1996 Mayor Brad Fyle, and members, Monticello City Council I believe the Monticello City Council erred April 22nd in passing a new policy that requires letters to the editor by city staff to be read in advance by members of the council. I will stand in front of you Monday night, at time requested on the agenda, to argue that the motion be rescinded. The arguments are threefold: 1) Rather than restrain public comment by city employees, the council should instead encourage your staff to speak out. Part of their responsibility as administrators should be to explain or defend public Issues. At times, they should be complimenting; at other times they should respond to criticism. Your administration is often times cast in the public light more than elected council members. Part of that public role Is to take up pen and write ... and have opinions published. it might be In the Times' letters to the editor column. It might be In the city's newsletter. Or It could be for our Community Perspective piece on the editorial page to which both council members and administrators have contributed. 2) By requiring letters to be screened by members of the council, you basically have raised a trust factor between the council and administration. That's counter to effective public policy. And what happens if a majority of the council members give their okay, but one or two wants changes? Would this have to come as an agenda item before a city employee could submit a letter? At the same time, you've created a time barrier which makes comment on current events in a timely manner almost impossible. Take the highly successful pathway open house. A letter from Jeff O'Neill or Wanda Kraemer for the June 6th Times saluting volunteers for the most successful event would have been most appropriate. But the earliest possible under this policy would have been a week or even two later, pending the council review. 3) Legal counsel for the Minnesota Newspaper Association has researched the Issue and firmly believes that any such restraint of free speech has severe constitutional defects. In America under the First Amendment, restraints on the content of speech are extremely limited. This very broad and vague policy is not likely to be legally defensible. 304A A challenge based on the constitutional questionability would be ammunition enough to overturn this action. But I think the other arguments are equally persuasive. I believe you want your staffers visible and vocal. They want your tnist and support. Finally, this motion was passed hurriedly, at the dose of a long and difficult rneeting. it did not have the study or background given to other Issues. Now six weeks have passed, with time for reflection and a review of our May 2 editorial and this letter. I trust this will lead to the policy being rescinded immediately. Sincerely, Donald mfth, Editor and Publisher enc.: May 2, 1998, Viewpoint, Monticello Times 3#6 MonticelloIIIO pinon Page _.�-.- Times -- -1 View p oint Council vote on letters is a mistake After working Into into the night on a long fiat of agenda items. rho Monticello City Council ended its most recent meet. '.'AF -122 with a shortly -debated veto estobshing a now letters-to•tha-editor polity. The council had o simple and not unworthy goal in mind—presenting a uni- Iled voico, particularly on ouch matters as city planning and budget priorities. And so the council voted unanimously that it be allowed to review )otters to the editor by city staff before such letters are sent to the newspaper. A simple goal; a bad idea. This new policy should be rescinded as soon as pos3ible. It's a bad idea because open and informed debate about government W affairs should always be encouraged, not muzzled. The new policy contrarily is an excessive restriction of an individuals mmtitutional right to speak on public issues. We do realize that before their vote on the matter, council members were careful te stresa that they V not want to pro• hibit city staff from writing any letters to the newspaper. They cited on April 1l let tar by the as t city odminlatraWr that detailed property value changes, tax rates and other matters. Several council members said they did not disagree with the April 11 letter, but just wanted letters with a signature followed by a city staff title to be submitted for pro -approval. Well, the council might an well have gone ahead and forbidden city staff from eommerin on city matters at all. It can be assumed that the muncil'a new polity will muse dry atalT to atop and wonder, 'Could thin moos o public nrprimand from the council?" every time it wants to offer an opinion on public affairs. FlirthermogAforEgN latter pro-approvally requirecallingg for o of the drycouncil A atohave to bo most bold indeed to summon such a moo- ing over the centonu of a personal Iat- ter—and aha meetingg would, by erste statutes, be open to the public anyway. For a newspaper, such apolicy also raises the concern that the ceuacil will nen consider pro -approval for all inter- views givenby city staff. And what about Community perspective columns written for this pa by city employees? Cenmrship a ahem would represent an even more seriouo restriction to the floe flow of information in Monticello. Let's keep in mind who makes up the city staff Thcity administrators, the public works director, the building inspector, the streets superintendent— time are all people on the front lines of city government. While the mayor and council members may provide the vision and approve the blueprinu far= gov ernment work it is the city that takes those guidelines and turns them into reality. It is the city staff that is the best to turn to for questions and opinions on speciflrs. And it is the city staff that is in a prime position to offer clnritications of public paha through such means as a letter to rho editor. ,It is virtually certain that the council does not have the right under the First Amendment to adopt this policy." stated Mark Anfinson, the attorney for the Minnesota Newspaper Association. Just as individual members of the council are freo to offer their independent views to the public domain, so should be each city employee. Surely the council can recognize the value in having city staff willing to speak frankly and thoughtfully an local govcrs• ment affairs. Surely it will fear the sty fling affect this now censorious policy will have. Surely the council will void its veto an letters to the editor. Council Minutes - 4/22/96 i C. Councilmember Clint Herbst requested that all "letters to the editor" written by City staff as City employees be reviewed and approved by the City Council. D. Councilmember Shirley Anderson requested that information mailed by City staff for the Monticello Community Partners (MCP) be mailed in plain envelopes rather than City of Monticello envelopes to avoid confusion on who the information is from. City staff will inform the MCP that they need to provide their subcommittees with a supply of envelopes for future mailings. Update on Highway 25/ .h 1 a Corridor Study. Mayor Brad Fyle noted that Council needed more time to review the Highway 25/Chelsea Corridor Study and recommended that no decisions be made at this time. Ron Bray of WSB briefly reviewed the study, the purpose of which was to determine the best position for a future intersection serving the area on State Highway 25 directly south of the freeway and for identifying service roads and access points to Highway 25. He also reviewed the proposed timeline and requested that Council schedule a workshop to review the proposed options. City Engineer Bret Weiss noted that MN/DOT is supportive of the project and has sufficient funds to construct an expansion of Highway 25 to four lanes from the freeway to Nellbergs Mobile Home Park. It was the consensus of Council to schedule a workshop for Monday, May 13, 1996, at 6 p.m., to discuss the Highway 26/Chelsea Corridor Study in more detail. • F. City Administrator Wolfsteller reported that according to the records retention schedule, meeting tapes may be destroyed one year after approval of the written minutes. He asked Council if they would like to keep the tapes longer or destroy them according to the retention schedule. It was the consensus of Council to authorize destruction of meeting tapes 3 years after approval of the written minutes. c. Page 2 JUN. -07' 96 (FRI 114 15 OLSON/USSET P. A. TEL 612 925 5879 P. UU2 OLSON, USSET & WEINGARDEN P.L.L.P. ATToa1BY6 AT LAW SUITE 510 1500 MRL GIM4 ROAD PAUL A 61EDCOARDOP 64DO6541OLIS, WN 55616 LEGAL AES(SIAWS DAVID J. tMOT DEBRA RMW THOMAS B. OLSON— TELEPHONE (612) 9254M PATSY FOLUAND D6M L DA2.6 FAX (612) 9215679 RIM FORTIN •6(fRA l',ef6r R�6 fid» BONNIE TROMNFS —MMA CadW COO TW SMWrim ROCKrORD OFFICE TELEPHONE (612) 477-5010 oLmmsmo. 7975(95) June 7, 1996 Via Facsimile and United States Mail The Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council City of Monticello 250 East Broadway Monticello, MN 55362 Dear Mayor and City Council Members: The undersigned has been requested to comment on a proposed policy which would prohibit City employees from submitting lettere to the local newspapers without prior review of the Council. For the reasons hereinafter stated, I believe such a policy would be inappropriate and urge against its adoption. Before analyzing the issues involved, it should be noted that the policy as proposed is facially overbroad and must be narrowed considerably. Any policy which would require pll communications to be acreenod by the Council is overbroad on its face. A municipality cannot omploy a complete ban on speech without reference to tho factors described below. See 11 CiThomas, 649 Pcd.2d 1193 (5th Cir. 1981) citing ty Of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972). The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution and our State Constitution protects freedom of expression. Moro than 20 years ago, the United States Supreme Court ruled that public employeas do not abandon their right to freedom of eppeach when they enter the work plate. Sea Pickeringye Honr�oi Education, 391 U.B. 563 (196 B) Rules that reatr ct freedom o speer or that act as a potential chilling on tho rights o! first nmendmont expression can lead to claims of wrongful discharge, improper discipline and civil rights damages. in counterbalance to this right, the Court recognized that public employers would be unable to function effectively without some controls of amploY*a expression. "The first amendment does not require a public office to bo run as a round table for employee complaints over internal office affaire". See, yrs 461 U.B. 138 `Note 7 at 149 (1973)). An empoyee a s eech— fs'not a matter of public concern if it is unlikely lheut tpo public or community truly would be concerned with or interested in tho particular expression. 34E JUN. -07' 96(FR1) 14:14 OLSON/USSET P. A. TEL:612 925 5879 P. 003 June 7, 1996 Page 2 As enunciated by and clarified by the Court has enunciated a ba ancing test to determine When speech may be proscribed by municipal authorities. The threshold Question on the employee's side of the equation is whether the employyeels statement can be "fairly characterized as constituting epeech on a matter of ublie concern". 483 O.S. 376 (1987). See v B83 Fe .2 842 (10th Cir. 1989). If the speech is not of pu die concern, it is not worthy of first amendment protection. Once it is established that the speech in question ie of ppublic concern, the interest of the municipality must be measured bYconsidering the follovingt 1. Does the speech impair discipline by superiors or harmony among co-workers; 2. Does the speech undermine close working relationships for which loyalty and competence are necessary; 3. Does the speech impede the performance of the employee's duty, or 4. The time, place and manner of speech; S. Context in which the dispute arosor 6. The degree of public interest in the speech. In summary, any attempt to "screen" letters by the Council, no matter how benign or puro the Council's motives are, may be viewed as an impermiooible prior restraint upon constitutionally protected speoe . while you certainly can disciplineamp loyeeo Por reloaso of deliberately false or defamatory material, or prevent a pure of private personnel matters, the proposed policy os drafted is overbroad. In attempting to narrow any ouch policy, since the 2 balancing toot falls on a case by case analysis. I am cocernQC a that any such policy would require the Council to scrutinise every communication by staff end may ultimately be constitutionally deficient. I would suggest abandoning any ouch policy and simply leaving internal speech is use to the disciplinary authority of the City Administrator and deportment heads. if you have any questions regarding the within. I vi 11 be available for consultation. V1 e pa A. W n PAw,lld 34F Council Agenda - 6/10/96 36. Avenue. (R.W.) Recently, the Mayor and Council members received a letter Brom Monticello Township officials alleging that a drainage problem existing along Gillard Avenue by 95th Street was not taken care of as part of the City's Gillard Avenue/Meadow Oak storm sewer project. As a result of this letter, the Mayor asked me to explain why the Township was writing this correspondence and whether the City did cause a problem that did not exist before at this intersection. As some of you may recall, the City Engineer had initially proposed to provide a storm sewer stub that would have directly benefited Township property and would have taken care of the drainage problem that we thought may have existed at this intersection as part of the Meadow Oak storm sewer project. When the Council was informed that Monticello Township officials had specifically instructed that they would not be willing to pay for any additional cost to cover storm sewer improvements and would only be reimbursing the City for the cost of half of a 2 -inch overlay along Gillard, Bret Weiss had eliminated any storm sewer connection for benefiting properties outside of the city limits. It should be noted that storm water that does pond in the northeast corner of Gillard and 95th Street has always been a problem in this area and was not caused by anything the City did in reconstructing Gillard. It appeared from the Township's correspondence that the City may have caused a problem and did not correct it during the construction; but according to our information, we simply did not install a storm sewer outlet for this area since it was Township property, and the Township did not want to pay for any of the coat of the improvement. In response to their letter. I requested that Bret contact Township officials to let them know that we would not be favorable to the Township simply redirecting their water into our storm sewer system unless they were willing to help share in an assessment. As you can see from Bret's memo, the Township does not seam willing to consider a storm sower assessment but would like to still try and solve their problem by using our storm sewer systom. The question becomes, does the City want to allow the culvert to be placed by directing their storm water into our system at no charge, or is the Council comfortable with our proposal to request compensation? It may be appropriate for the Council to discuss this situation and provide a response to the Township as soon as possible. Council Agenda - 6/10/96 Council could request that Monticello Township reconsider their plans to install a culvert if they are not willing to pay an area assessment for storm water acorn. Council could agree to allow the culvert to be installed by the Township without any fee for discharging water into our system. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Both the City Engineer and myself feel that since Township officials had originally indicated they were not interested in contributing any more than the cost of the 2 -inch bituminous overlay toward this project, it brings into question whether a culvert directly discharging into our system should occur without some sort of compensation. Memo from WSB; Copy of Township letter. AL &Associates, Inc. 350 Westwood Lake Office 8441 Wayzata Boulevard Minneapolis, MN 55426 612.541.4800 FAX 541-1700 To: Mr. Rick Waysteller, City Administrator From. Bret A. Weiss, AE., City Engineer Date: June 4, 1996 Re: Township Culvert Gillard Avenue WSB Project No. 1010.00 BA % induodc. P.E B- A. Wa P.E Paa 0. Wdknbr4 P.E Donald W. s,—. P.E. Rmuld B. Bnr. RE Memorandum As we discussed, 1 contacted Franklin Denn from Monticello Township to discuss the pending placement of a culvert at the south end of Gillard Avenue. The Township intends to install this culvert to address a drainage problem located in the northeast quadrant of Gillard Avenue and 95th Street. The Township has alluded to the fact that the City was negligent in their design by not correcting this drainage problem during the construction of the Meadow Oaks Outlet project. I discussed with Mr. Dern that the City had identified this particular location as a drainage problem and had initially included a pipe to collect that storm water in the proposed storm sewer system as a part of the preliminary design. The City, however, made a decision not to collect that storm water after the Township stated they would only be willing to contribute funds for a two-inch overlay on their half of Gillard Avenue. I related to Mr. Denn that the City was already picking up the storm water assessment for a substantial acreage within Monticello Township due to the City's inability to assess those areas. As such, the natural drainage for the area in question did not get to the south side of 95th Street in its existing condition. We were told that the drainage discharged east in the north ditch of 95th Street. Franklin said that they had evaluated that situation and it does not drain to the east and so they are looking for better alternatives. They felt the best alternative to deal with the situation is to discharge the water to the south into the Gene Bauer property and ultimately into our system. I stated to Mr. Dean that 1 was very concerned about the prospect of installing the culvert due to the fact that the Township was not assessed for any of the Infrwtruct re • Enguuen -Planner; EQUAL OrrOIUUNM EMPUMM I �rT�avaeoywwAr ,3154- drainage in that area 1 told Mr. Denn that if this culvert is installed, I would recommend that the Township is assessed for the amount of acreage served by the culvert and would propose to assess that at S1,551 per acre in accordance with the approved assessment roll. Mr. Denn stated that he did not feel that anyone along Gillard Avenue should have been assessed and he does not feel that the Township Board would be willing to pay that assessment. Mr. Denn further mentioned that the City Inspector agreed with the Township that this culvert should be installed. I informed Mr. Denn that it is not a question of whether or not it makes sense to install the culvert, but rather how do we deal with the assessment issues for the benefit realized by the installation of the culvert without jeopardizing the assessment roll previously prepared for the remainder of the drainage area 1 told Mr. Denn that I would be happy to attend one of their Township Board Meetings or they would be welcome to address the City Council to rectify the situation, however, at this time, I could not recommend allowing them to discharge into the Gene Bauer property without further consideration. Mr. Denn stated that he would get back to me after he has had a chance to talk with the Township Board about the situation. On June 5th, Mr. Denn called back and said that the Township Board discussed the situation and was not in favor of paying an assessment. He said that he doesn't want this situation to become heated and just wants to find a solution. I said that we would discuss it at the next council meeting and then I would call him back. c: Jeff O'Neill, City of Monticello John Simola, City of Monticello Tom Bose, City of Monticello r•rrraMnro�rrrn� n 3 VK Monticello Township County Road 117 Monticello. Minnesota 55362 May 24, 1995 Mayor Brad Pyie and Council Members City of Monticello 210 West Broadway Monticello, Mn. 55362. Dear Mayor Pyle and Council Members: It has come to our attention that adequate drainage was not properly provided for at the time of road reconstruction at the south end of Dillard by 95th Street. To accomodate for this, we will place a culvert across 95th Street to eliminate ponding of the water therei but it is our feeling that thin should have been taken care of at the time of the initial engineering or the project. sincerely, MONTICELLO TOWN BOARD OF SUPERVISORS by clerk, Darlene Sawatsko. 3 9P CJ Council Agenda - 6/10/96 1 r,� r r,r , yr r ,�r 1 v ::a : qr .1r r •:r:. On April 22, the City Council discussed whether the option of allowing Presbyterian Homes to purchase individual unit free-standing air cleaners as needed on a complaint basis would be in compliance with the original conditional use permit requirement that an air filtration system would be developed that would control possible offensive odors from the adjacent wastewater treatment plant. The mechanical system of the Mississippi Shores project did appear to have an odor control system that was acceptable for the common areae of the building, but the individual living units did not have adequate odor scrubbing systems. Officials from Presbyterian Homes had indicated a willingness to purchase individual charcoal filtered units if a problem developed and they would do so on a complaint basis by residents. As you may recall, the City Council voted to deny acceptance of a staged odor control plan and indicated that it was not consistent with the original conditional use permit requirement. As a result, I'm sure it was assumed by the Council that Presbyterian Homes would proceed with the acquisition of 49 individual air control units. On April 25, 1 met with representatives of Presbyterian Homos, along with HRA Chairman AI Larson and Hospital Board Member Don Biske, who noted that the building was scheduled for occupancy on May 1 by some residents and that they did not feel they would have sufficient time to puzchase all of the units prior to occupancy, They noted they had thought a connpromise was reached prior to the previous Council meeting that would allow them to only be required to purchase two unite that could be provided on a complaint basis to residents and that they would purchase additional units if and when odors became a problem. They were surprised to learn that the Council had required all of the units to be purchased immediately and had requested some time to further investigate with the City Consulting Engineer, Mr. George Bluhm of OSM, other options. In order to allow occupancy, they provided an escrow deposit of $7,350 to cover the estimated cost of providing 49 air filtration units at $160 each. As I'm sure you're aware, most of the units are now occupied, and the issue of the odor control units has not yet been finalized nor purchased by Presbyterian Homes. In order to get this item off dead center, Presbyterian Homes was notified that we needed to know what their progress was in obtaining these odor control units, or the City would be required to cash the check and purchase units for them. Since this was not our original intent, we hoped this would bring the matter to a final conclusion. Council Agenda - 6/10/98 Representatives of Presbyterian Homes have again requested to be on the agenda to discuss with the Council their rationale for why they would like to we only a couple units being purchased at this time with the option of providing more if it really becomes a problem. They feel to purchase the unite at this time when ,)dors may not be a problem would be spending money unnecessarily, and they wanted an opportunity to present their rationale in person. To provide additional background, you may want to refer to the agenda item enclosed from April 22 and also the Council minutes of that meeting. I've also enclosed a copy of the escrow deposit letter that I had received which allowed occupancy to begin until this issue was finally resolved. Reaffirm the previous action requiring the odor oontrol system to be provided immediately. Accept a phased -in proposal as meeting the conditions of the conditional use permit. Some other compromise. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Since we are not aware of any additional information or alternatives that have been discussed by Presbyterian Homes and/or our consulting engineer, staff does not have any additional recommendation other than originally provided on April 22, 1996. Copy of escrow agreement letter provided by Presbyterian Homes; Council agenda and minutes of 4/22/98; Notice to Mississippi Shores residents. *1M Presbyterian Homes OF MINNESOTA Ardee NRb 3220 lake Johanna Blvd Arden ZIP. MN 55112.7997 10121 031 -elm FAX I01210)Ic046 Cldean Pond Campus 10030 N --n Ave S BIe0m1n@on, MN 55431.2939 W.3000 FAX 10121048-3017 C—fty SoMcaa 1910 W County Road D Rns Ile. MN 55112.3599 10121 e11.6038 EAC 10111031.0032 umk o.ada the M.P.held 2n50 .Mnikl Place Drne Lail, Cu,rni MN 15117-10n9 10121,02.1729 FA\ X0121482.1315 M4aaroe►. Bedmn N111 5100 Beacon KII Rodd Minnr'nka 5-5 MN 5514M1 161119R5•M13D FAX I n 1'I QKR-M 15 R-1061910 W Cuunly R -d D R,�e�111e MN 55112.3599 In121e11 •[,200 FAIL le 171 ei l M32 SpAy Park e. l'ke Mlaaeto.ka 4527 $nufA11M Dnve tinno4 P nk MN 55384.9771 1012:471.4000 FAX In171471.3909 corporal. OKI 3110 Lyle Johanna Blvd a r—I MN 55112.7997 in121031 �n Inn FAX 1n121 n11•n108 F99.d.d9. 32;11 L,le' Mono Bhd 'q P-1 VW $5112 7907 April 30,1996 Mr. Rick Wolfsteller, City Administrator City of Monticello 250 East Broadway Monticello, MN 55362 Subject: Occupancy Permit for Mississippi Shores Dear Rick: Thanks in large part to help and assistance from the City of Monticello, we are now in a position to open our jointly developed facility - Mississippi Shores • as soon as Wednesday, May 1. One of the final issues is satisfactorily addressing odor control. At our April 5. 1996 meeting, we talked about several issues. The proposal, at that time, was to add a second charcoal filter system at a cost of $11,000 and to purchase two portable units to be available for rooms at an estimated cost of $150.00 each. At a recent council meeting, there apparently was discussion and requirement that these portable units be available in every room. This poses a temporary problem for us because that quantity is not Immediately available and we are being advised that an alternative model may be more effective in meeting the needs. Our proposed solution is to deposit $150.00 x 49 units or $7,350.00 with the City of Monticello to insure that all portable units are in place well in advance of the timing of the odor issues. This would allow us additional time to explore with the city and city staff the most appropriate type of unit to meet the issues as defined. This would also allow residents of Monticello to move into their new homes as planned without additional disruption to their or their families schedules. In that regard, please find a check for $7,350.00. Please contact me at 6316133 if additional information or discussion would be helpful in working together to resolve this Issue. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Daniel A, Lindh Chief Operating Officer C Denote, Id Ihr ,Irymlp and nJrprmh nlr df Fr t!r In rptlmmrnl Council Agenda - 4/22/96 - •: A 1 , 1 M' �.� 1 kl , Aarra 1/ As you may recall, in January of 1995, the City Council approved a conditional use permit to allow development of a 48 -unit three-story senior housing project (Mississippi Shores). As a condition of the approval, condition N9 stated "An air filtration system will be developed that will serve common areas within the building and will serve individual apartments meeting design requirements of the City Engineer." Mississippi Shores Building Commitee is requesting that the City Council consider whether or not this staged plan meets the requirement as outlined in the conditional use permit. On Thursday, April 18, 1996, George Bloom, an engineer from OSM evaluating the Mississippi Shores odor control system, the Building Official, Gary Anderson, and myself inspected the odor control system installed at the project. Contrary to what we had been led to believe, we found carbon filters had been installed to service both the outside air supply and the return air for the three heating units that service the common areas in the building. In addition, standard quality residential type prefilters were installed ahead of the carbon filters. This system appears to be acceptable for scrubbing the common areas, although we would recommend a higher quality prefilter to protect the carbon filters, and there is some additional sealing and gasketing of duct work and doors to keep odors from getting into the common areas through the garage area, boiler room area, and the combustion air intakes in the upper furnace rooms. The individual room window air conditioner units were to have no controls to allow outside fresh air to be circulated through the air conditioner. If the inside air conditioner cover is removed, there is a control to let outside air to enter through the air conditioner. This control should be removed so as not to allow fresh air to enter the building through the air conditioner. The garage area below is not protected from odors entering that area. Assuming that the currently -installed odor control system is tightened up, and the certified balancing of the system does show a pressurization of the common areas, and some type of maintenance program is written up for the building maintenance personnel, this system is acceptable. Each of the individual living units, however, do not have adequate odor scrubbing systems. A tiny charcoal filter and the non -vented kitchen hoods will not scrub odors from the living units. Once odors enter the living units, they will remain there until the odors outside the building have dissipated and the windows can be opened. George Bloom of OSM has, therefore, recommended that individual table -top or freo•standing air cleaners be purchased for each of the units. We would expect these table -top or freo-standing units to have a 200 CFM scrubbing capacity, and there are many outlets at which to purchaso these. The Mississippi Shores Building Committee has asked that Council Agenda - 4/22/96 they be allowed to purchase only two of these units, one for a two bedroom and one for a single bedroom unit, and purchase additional units or obtain them only upon complaints from individual residents. They have not indicated what the delivery time of additional units would be or whether or not the funds would be set aside for the purchase of those air cleaners. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTION : 1. Motion to accept phased plans as meeting condition q9 of the conditional use permit. Under this alternative, City Council is comfortable that the proposed plan will meet the minimum requirements for air filtration, and the action plan for solving a problem, should one occur, is sufficient to meet the minimum requirements as outlined in the conditional use permit; therefore, the staged plan is consistent with the conditional use permit requirement. 2. Motion to deny the staged odor control plan. Under this alternative, the City Council could take the view that the staged plan for controlling the odors is insufficient. It could be argued that the two free-standing room air cleaners are not sufficient. A larger inventory of air room cleaners will be needed to purify air in a timely manner; therefore, the staged plan is not consistent with the conditional use permit requirement. C STAFF F. A MF.NDATION: The City Administrator, Assistant Administrator, Public Works Director, and Building Official are concerned about the staged approach to the odor control required by the conditional use permit for Mississippi Shores. If the staged approach is selected by the City Council, it must be clear that there is a high degree of likelihood that odors will be produced at the wastewater treatment plant over the upcoming construction period at the plant which the City and PSG will not have control over. If the odors find their way into the nearby Mississippi Shores living units, they cannot be dissipated by the existing system until the odors subside. Presbyterian Homes, as owner of the building, would be responsible to see that the individual room air cleaners were purchased and installed quickly upon receipt of a complaint from the individual tenants. City Staff ig uncomfortable with recommending the staged approach to the odor control system for Mississippi Shores. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of letter fiom the City Engineer and Project Manager regarding the topic; Copy of Council minutes from January 1996. Council Minutes - 4/22/96 .. r• �.. . «•.n. «.. a .. 1i .1.) Assistant Administrator Jeff O'Neill reported that in January of 1995, the City Council approved a conditional use permit to allow development of a 48 - unit three-story senior housing project (Mississippi Shores). As a condition of the approval, condition #9 stated "an air filtration system will be developed that will serve common areas within the building and will serve individual • apartments meeting design requirements of the City Engineer." O'Neill noted that after inspection of the Mississippi Shores odor control system, it appeared the system for the common areas was acceptable; however, the individual living units did not have adequate odor scrubbing systems. George Bloom of OSM recommended that individual table -top air cleaners be purchased for each of the units; however, the Mississippi Shores Building Committee proposed to purchase only two individual units and purchase additional units upon complaints from individual residents. Council was requested to consider approval of this staged plan as meeting the requirement outlined in the conditional use permit. Councilmember Herbst noted that it would be wise to purchase the air cleaners as requested by residents rather than all at once to avoid unneeded extra cost. It was also noted by Councilmember Anderson that complaints from residents would go to Presbyterian Homes since they are the owners of the building; however, other Council members felt that since Presbyterian Homes was aware of the odor control requirements prior to building, they should be required to provide air cleaning units to each apartment. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STUMPF AND SECONDED BY TOM PERRAULT TO DENY APPROVAL OF THE STAGED ODOR CONTROL PLAN, AS TWO FREE-STANDING AIR CLEANERS WOULD NOT BE SUFFICIENT AND WAS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUIREMENT. Voting in favor: Brian Stumpf, Tom Perrault, Brad Fyle. Opposed: Clint Herbst, Shirley Anderson, as it was their view that purchasing the air cleaning units as requested by residents was acceptable. Motion passed. 3 C NOTICE To: Mississippi Shores Residents THE MISSISSIPPI SHORES BUILDING IS LOCATED NEAR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO'S WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY. THIS FACILITY HAS THE POTENTIAL TO CREATE ODORS AND HAS DONE SO IN THE PAST. BEGINNING THIS SUMMER, THE CITY WILL BE RENOVATING AND EXPANDING THE FACILITY. DURING THE NEXT TWO YEARS, THERE WILL BE A GREATER CHANCE OF ODORS BEING PRODUCED. THE CITY'S NEW FACILITY WILL INCORPORATE TECHNOLOGIES THAT SHOULD REDUCE, BUT NOT ELIMINATE, ODOR PROBLEMS FROM OCCURRING AFTER COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT. AS A REQUIREMENT FOR LOCATING MISSISSIPPI SHORES NEAR THE CITY'S WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT, PRESBYTERIAN HOMES WAS REQUIRED TO INSTALL AN ODOR CONTROL SYSTEM WITHIN THE BUILDING SO ODORS COULD BE FILTERED FROM THE COMMON AREAS AND INDIVIDUAL APARTMENTS. THE BUILDING'S MN HEATING AND AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEM FOR THE COMMON AREAS INCLUDES AN ACTIVATED CHARCOAL FILTERING SYSTEM. THE GARAGE AREA IS UNFILTERED. FOR THE INDIVIDUAL APARTMENTS, A SMALL CHARCOAL FILTER HAS BEEN PLACED IN THE KITCHEN RANGE HOODS WHICH MAY ASSIST IN REMOVING MINOR ODORS FROM IN AND AROUND THE KITCHEN AREA IN ADDITION, A FREE-STANDING OR DESKTOP AIR CLEANER, WHICH ALSO INCORPORATES CHARCOAL FILTERING SYSTEM, HAS BEEN PROVIDED FOR YOUR USE. IN THE EVENT THAT ODORS ARE DETECTED IN YOUR APARTMENT, COMING FROM 'QUTSIDE THE BUILDING', YOU SHOULD CLOSE AND SECURE ALL WINDOWS IMMEDIATELY. YOUR AIR CONDITIONING UNITS MAY BE OPERATED DURING THIS TIME AS THEY DO NOT USE OUTSIDE AIR. YOU SHOULD, HOWEVER, TURN ON YOUR KITCHEN HOOD TO ASSIST IN CLEANING SOME OF THE ODORS AND IF THE ODORS DO NOT IMPROVE, TURN ON THE FREE-STANDING OR DESKTOP AIR FILTER SYSTEM. IT WILL BE NECESSARY TO OPERATE BOTH OF THESE UNITS UNTIL THE AIR FROM THE OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING IS CLEAR OF ODORS. IF AFTER FOLLOWING THE ABOVE STEPS, AN ODOR STILL EXISTS IN YOUR APARTMENT, CONTACT YOUR CARETAKER. THANK YOU, PRESBYTERIAN HOMES 3c Council Agenda - 6/10/96 sA. mintina nn HRs A REFERENCE. AND RACKGRO TND: At the HRA meeting of June 6, 1996, existing HRA Commissioners interviewed two candidates for the HRA seat vacated by the resignation of Everette Ellison. Following the interview and discussion, HRA Commissioners approved a motion recommending the City Council consider the name of Steve Andrews for appointment to the HRA Commission. The expiration date of this five- year term is December 1997. The intent of Mr. Andrews, upon appointment to the HRA by the City Council, is to resign from the Parks Commission. R_ ALTERNATIVE ACTIONR: 1. A motion approving the appointment of Steve Andrews as a Commissioner of the HRA. 2. A motion denying the appointment of Steve Andrews as a Commissioner of the HRA. 3. A motion of other action. t'.. RT FF R .O NDATION: Staff supports the HRA's recommendation. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Resume of Steve Andrews. Steven R. Andrews resumif Projects/Activities Monticello Parks Commission. Crew member, Monticello - Big Lake Ambulance Service. Participant in quality improvement process at Monticello - Big Lake Community Hospital's Ambulance Departrnent. Custom-designed and implemented a computer-aided dispatch system for North Medical Transportation Services. Employment North Memorial Medical Center, Robbinsdale, 1979 - present: Present capacity: Supervisor, North Medical Transportation Communications Center. Oversee day-to-day operations of the ambulance dispatch center. Supervise 19 employees. Responsible for depariment budget and financial planning. Education SI. John's University, graduated cum laude 1989. Majors: Government/Public Affairs, and Social Science. Other involvements: mhate'ream; Coordinator, Medical Response Unit. Interests Family: My wife Mary, and our first child due in September. Community and neightwnhood involvement. Home: improvement projects. Computer / Internet applications. SAO+ Council Agenda - 6/10/96 se. Consideration of ointment to vacA*+cv on PoBce Gon�awion (R.W.) The Monticello Police Advisory Commission currently has two vacancies that will eventually need to be filled by appointment of the City Council. One of the vacancies was created when Mr. Jim Fleming did not want to be reappointed to an additional 3 -year term. Mr. Fleming, who was not a current city resident, was elected to the Hospital Board and did not wish to continue with the Police Commission. This vacancy would run until December 1998 (3 -year term). A second vacancy was created by the recent resignation of the Chairman, Mr. Warren Smith. His term had two years remaining until December 31, 1997. In our recent newsletter, it was noted that we were accepting letters of interest from individuals who wanted to serve on either the Library Board or the Police Advisory Commission. As a result of the notice, Bridget Baldwin, 28 River Terrace, expressed an interest in being appointed to the Police Commission. She is currently a student at St. Cloud State University majoring in criminal justice studies and hopes to someday be a deputy with the Wright County Sheriffs Department. It would appear that she would be a Qualified candidate for appointment. As an additional note, the Police Commission has normally met Quarterly throughout the year; but due to Warren Smith's resignation, the commission has not yet met during 1998. In addition, commission members have not had a specific topic or reason for meeting recently, and it is likely the next meeting will be sometime in July to discuss with the Sheriffs Department the current contract operations, including a recommendation on hours of coverage for next year and to review a proposed 1997 budget. Council could appoint Me. Bridget Baldwin to one of the vacant terms remaining on the Police Advisory Commission, either a 2 -year term expiring December 1997 or the 3 -year term expiring December 1998. Do not appoint Ms. Baldwin at this time and continue to seek additional applicants for the two vacancies. Council Agenda - 6/10/96 C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Previous to the quarterly newsletter announcing the vacancy, an advertisement was put in the Monticello Times seeking applicanta to volunteer. The City had not received any responses to date; and since Ms. Baldwin has expressed an interest, I would recommend Council appoint her to one of the vacancies. Letter of interest. 28 River Terrace Monticello, Mn 55362 (612)295-6351 Re: Police Advisory Commission June 3, 1996 To Whom It May Concern: I am writing to bring notice of my interest in serving as a volunteer on the Monticello Police Advisory Commission. I have a strong interest in issues surrounding community safety and security. Currently, I am three quarters away from obtaining by BA in Criminal Justice Studies at St. Cloud State University with a minor in Health and Traffic Safety and an emphasis in Community Policing. I intend to continue my education by pursuing a MA in this field. My career goal is to obtain a position as a deputy with the Wright County Sheriff's Department and proceed from there. So far, I am serving as a Reserve Officer for this department and am thoroughly enjoying the position. Through this position, I am able to meet people within the Monticello community and surrounding communities throughout Wright County and feel that I am doing my part to keep these communities safe for everyone. I believe that I can contribute in maintaining and improving the community's safety and security standards through the application of what I have learned from my education thus far via serving on the Police Advisory Commission. I am eager to contribute to the best of my ability and am looking forward to being accepted as part of the team. ASincerely, Bridget Baldwin 56+ Council Agenda - 6/10/96 5c. Consideration of gmnting annnal annmva-1 for municilMl licensee. (R.W.) A. RFZERENCE 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, and submission of proper insurance coverage. The licenses submitted for your consideration are as follows: Intoxicating LiQlmr, Qn sale (fee $3,760) 1. Monticello Liquor, Inc. 2. Silver Fox 3. Joyner Lanes 4. Robert Eidsvold DBA Comfort Inn 6. J.P.'s Annex 6. Hawks Sports Bar Intoxicating Ligunn On•salesnday (fee $200—set by statute) 1. Monticello Liquor, Inc. 2. Silver Fox 3. Joyner Lanes 4. VFW Club 6. American Legion Club 6. J.P.'s Annex 7. Hawks Sports Bar Mon• n o i a 'ng Malt, On -sal o (fee $276) 1. Rod and Gun (Steak Fry only) 2. Pizza Factory 3. Country Club Council Agenda - 6/10/96 Non-intoxirntine alt._ Off -s-_1 (fee $75) 1. Monticello Liquor 2. Maus Foods 3. River Terrace 4. Tom Thumb 5. Holiday Stationstore 6. SuperAmerica Set-up .i a (fee $276) Country Club Rod and Gun (steak fry only) .1 nh .i . a s (fee --set by statute based on membership) 1. VFW - $500 2. American Legion - $500 A single motion approving these licenses should read similar to, "I move that the following licenses be approved effective July 1, 1996." Although July 1 is the effective renewal date, I have notified all liquor license holders that all application forms, certificates of insurance forms, and payments for the license fees need to be submitted to city hall by Monday, June 3, in order to provide sufficient time for the City to submit the applications and insurance certificates to the State Liquor Control Division. In the past, most license holders have been waiting until the end of June to remit their fees and provide the necessary information for license renewals, which delayed the State Liquor Control Division fMm approving the licenses until way after the July 1 deadline. Since the State has been reprimanding the City for turning in this information late, I have notified all license holders that 1 expect this information and the appropriate fees to be turned in to the City by June 3 or their license renewals may lapse on July 1, and they could be subject to violating the liquor laws by selling without a license. Most license holders have complied, although we are still waiting for a few insurance certificates. None. 10 Council Agenda - 6/10/96 so. Consideration of accepting Md for Liquor store painting- (R.W.) A. RF.FFRRNCR NP A . GROUND: As you may recall, Joe Hartman recently noted that the wood fascia trim on the liquor store building is again in need of painting or staining. In the past, the cedar boards have been stained every 3-6 years. As an alternative, Joe investigated the feasibility of installing vinyl or steel siding over the wood fascia in an effort to create a maintenance -free building. Two quotes were received for various siding alternatives ranging from installing the siding in a vertical fashion, diagonal fashion, or horizontal, and these prices ranged from $6,000 to $10,000. I believe there were some concerns by the Council in the past that replacing the wood with vinyl or steel siding may detract from the appearance the wood now offers. It was suggested by a painting contractor that we may want to consider simply painting the wood fascia rather than staining, as a good latex paint should last 6-7 years before repainting is necessary. From a visual standpoint, I don't believe anybody will know whether the wood has been painted or stained, and this would be a lower cost alternative. Two quotations were received, one from Northstar Painting in the amount of $1,166, and the second from Signe Plus in the amount of $1,709. It is recommended that the low quote from Northstar Painting in the amount of $1,166 be accepted. R AI.TFRNATM ACTION 1. Accept the low bid from Northstar Painting in the amount of $1,166. 2. Authorize the installation of steel siding in a diagonal fashion to match the existing appearance in the amount of $7,660 from Jamco Exteriors. C STAFF RECOMMENDATION; It is the recommendation of the Liquor Store Manager and City Administrator that the fascia boards be painted and the low bid from Northatar Painting be accopted. D_ SUPPORTING DATA: Two painting quotes; Two siding proposals. Irgwed WHIENW&MOP LUMNERCIAL PAINTING C0NTRACT(AP$ GREG BRADBURY, (612) 274-2700 o aVo 3ba 9 ?ager, A vv)rxfek. MN 55702 N)2n(STAR PAINTING SUIfMI nin iu,, OREO BRAI)WRY 10 WAY LK)UORS 611IR1NFYSUCY,IX INdF. 111011WAY 25 ANNAN)N.f MN. S5W2 MONFICEIJ.II, MN. W)RT1 LSfAR PADfITN0 PROIY)SFJf TO FURNISI I MATERIALS AND PERFORM n1E IABOR NF.CE.S.SARY FOR TIM COM METION 11F PAIN M n¢ FXMIOR I)F I II WAY LIQUOIRS IIWY 25 MUNTICETA.O I, MN. WF. WILL REMOVE All u ■ 1,SF PAINf UN WOX)D AREAS AN) REPAIR 27 nTf O W RUTTFN I X A TRIM PAINT N.1. WOX R) AREAS ON BUBJ )IMI W In I IA I U PAINT AN) USE LATEX PRIMER ON RARE W(X)D AREAS APPLICAPON WUJ. RE SPRAYED AN)A)R BACK BRUSFI iI) OR BACK Roll. ALJ. MATERIAL IS O UARANTEED n) RF. AS SMC B1ED. AND T1 IF. AFA)VF. WORK BR PF.RFORMIiD M ACCORDANCE. WRII nU? SPECIFICATIONS SUBM)TTPJ) AROVF ALL WORK WHA. BE CUMPLFTI D M A WORKMANSI IIP MANNER FUR n w SUM OF ONE n RR]SAND ONE I R)MRPJ) FIFTY FIVE AM) NO CENTS 111155 00). W In I PA YMENTS TO BE MADE. AS FOXJJ )W S PAYMIiNf IS DI W. IN FIM. IMON COIMM TIO N OV WORK ANY AI.n:RA I'R )N OR DHV IA'f R Rd FROM Allf W 1i STTCIFICA'I IONS INVO LVIMI C(I.S'I Will 10: EXECITIM) OM, ORSAI WRf rn...N O IRI LER. AND W II J. BIYO )Mli AN EXTRA CI IAROF. OVER AND AM)VU 118? FSITMATE. All. AOREFdU�NfS COMg1N II-Xr UFS)N ACCIDEM S OR DI; LA Y5 I11iY1 MR) O R IR CO)NMOL. RLW'FCivuu.Y SURMfTn:o. ORFO I r al -!Y ACO:F.PI'ANC'E OF PRO $k )W, . n OS ABOVE PRICFS, SPFCIFIC'ATIUNS ANTI0 VNI M'IO NS ARII SAI ISFACTI PRY ANI ARE IR;RI:BY ACCFJqLD YUIIARIIAUI11.gOVJ•;DTODUnUSWURKAJ SPECIFIED SIOINED, SIONFI), DAl1:D. 6,,04 PROPOSAL I RANDY S. SALO %87 Ba ton Ave. NW Monticelb, MN 55364 (612) 878-4U2 FAX (61I) 495.6738 INQU1RYNO. 1aR17n DATE may t;. 1QQF+ TERMS k dncn and ly upon co�nletinn TOHi-Way Liquors Mondral1n_ MN S516 Joe WE ARE PLEASED TO QUOTE ON YOUR INQUIRY AS FOLLOWS: I OLIANTITY DESCRIPTION• V scrape, replace weathered boards, and paint 10with latex paint, caulk trim board all on wood $1,150.110 area. material $ 525.¢0 tax on material $ 34.13 =-I Proposal Proposal No. FROM jAMCO EXTERIORS Sheet No. /.•I- P.O. BOX 602_ Dale BUFFALO, MN 55313 Proposal Submitted To Work To Be Performed At I `/ Name��A�AA% Site- 11 !�, " WAtY LJ4(sC.Ys Street µWy 25- S. City. AOAZEtr"e Las, ctote Azd City 0AI I-/ C z i - Date of Pian State HAI Architeru Telephone Numb- s/.y, 2 c1 SZ"L•L 1 We hereby propose to furnish all the materials and perform all the labor necessary for the completion of t be- iwsiraLx.ea eh 6cur-D:-e.,q ; EKr1CAa jir�1¢c. _ .V[rc'iL✓rVW.- .STEe1- sia/'Vci 4tiis ALUMINsrar. 51p..VQ 0- SC •73Ze" �'i5 " material is guaranteed to be as specified, and the above work to be performed in accordance with the drawings .d specifications submitted for above work and completed In a substantial workmanlike manner for the sum of Dollars IS 1. with payments to be made as follows, o'e t ori t.9.r,ay of►.� — AT S f��'� Zvi/f Any alteration or deviation from above specifications Involving extra costs, will be executed only upon written orders, and will become an extra charge over and above the estimate. All agreements contingent upon strikes, accidents or delays beyond our control. Owner to carry fire, tornado and other necessa Insurance upon above rk. Workmen's Compensation and Public Liability Insurance on above work to be taken out by 7IOiEM:: •1:`/ I`AVll/ Respectfully submitted�J���CV� Per Note — This proposal may be withdrawn by us if not accepted within $a days ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL The above prices, specifications and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized to do the work as specified. Payment will be mode as outlined above. :cepted DatAl Signature Signature 5,0C.) fN-+Y-23-1??0 11 3c' 612 J41 P.01 '- Proposal rage no. �7�ob Wl" TAIL � t1474. /itC 3-& DAYS , MN License No. 00004457 i Sze Main St. EQ Rtm. MN 6330 (812)441.7240 Feu 441.4774 j ( Jsa Gfedk rw0roau auwITTCD r0 i SoC Fi/iRTwrAr� (/// wAl� SHIT nClraarc 6/OUWA S 22 L ' JOY n g Po SOX 1141 Pn. sunt -0 id C00i t X. Lot"*. -1-n r,cCKo faw-,aJ, S53cd'L sRC—Ecl I WTI 01IrLaN5 I JOa -c- Lia Nalapr aYer110 3tJeufipigrq ab asilmrNf IOI: ._ -. _ .. _ __ _ — eve 4040 ,f.cc, 4,400,00 6,K" O—Z"s �..ror/«.l. ISa+wGi AS ��r� To Gere us � C'c.�•/ Su.��,c 7e � Wosi1G LdrTN, /�kSO /E••rbrn.0 �'o1TW 6alrc.OS 0,400 �COLrIC.MS �ur/N ,✓6a�_ 'fwd Prue tit (yxv�a�zCd S>rrt. �(ilt.f I -e- AciwSS -r ao w/ti serol 7t4s •- S4,,Z w[ colo. "V 110 d^c -rva 4,2*— c "0 IVC c r.c 'O's, i,Lls r's." 044C Sbm r 01u A., er—ex" a S.41,64 Swat, iloj.a�o✓r4t I/i.iYc D/AG.aNt di vyc ✓o!/�ZaL .3Taec 11,) 2t. BGGC. 9o8G -7,P?6p 7010 — ZOO ee.Ji• Il>a!2(i 8yW � AAR(a. "7G8ti i 100 ' — 30o - � 8/Gfi i "7386 place �NccuABs TAY, .w�r1►J�„/L yar�ssole,rr prta..Ir s «�.r✓ yr xWh Airo,.o44. a < *11 6 X4.110 OZ6413 - 1111n XII Propos, hereby to furnish materiel and tabor — Complete in accordwLe with abOYe {peCdrCalWna, for the um w +oltan iS Varmam to a me” as tsllots" M.AWW awnaaawlowtawaMalas►MIw¢awa IAMr�e af= awrlratwwaawtsw ta.lawa aa�wwrw naaatOAr a�aa s+e aw waawraa tr.wwMws awrr ar �a awarrlr Y i— rwweaa ear bar. ISM I wsaa saa.d r Caws rata w sal wawwiywrwsawsawwrlaw -wawwr.sabres aalbwrba trllaar% waadw.raslciass, drarawaNldaw wr=18.01wr w wIw �, rs� N W �� wwawwl OV ears • �r � �a Ca.srwwrw �t[f{IiGttllf Di �ltlpnaal-ro.1eo.. rt Loa, %WOKOMs "a c"tiaM era satilfwary W era terser .Ltipta0 , rut am sutlNJn[a0 to eo tte waft as son, ae Parraam "te masa a$ Wlwp saps. wtaor�llay si"urq Nae Tia, —1iwa to w,tllafawr tit ul ,1 N01 OCCLUO -Ih,n aJ, 4lputvs ` — 60aatYra .�� .. Council Agenda - 6/10/96 On Monday, June 3, 1996, we received a petition from Mike Blackston of Bondhus Manufacturing to extend water to the Bondhus Manufacturing facility on the south side of County Road 75 East. It appears the most likely place to extend service would be on the east side of the east entrance to Hart Boulevard, in front of the property recently purchased from Floyd Kruse. The water main currently dead -ends at this location and is located in the north ditch at County Road 75. Crossing any place further west would require not only jacking of County Road 75, but excavation of Hart Boulevard. I have asked Bret Weiss to prepare a cost estimate for doing the feasibility and cost study for extending water main across County Road 75, providing a hydrant for fire fighting purposes, and a service connection point for the Bondhus Corporation. The estimated cost of the feasibility study is $500. Enclosed is a copy of the petition. The first alternative is to order the feasibility and cost estimate from WSB as per the estimate from Bret Weiss, to be forwarded to the Bondhus Corporation and reviewed at the next Council meeting. The second alternative would be not to order the feasibility study/cost estimate. It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that the City Council authorize the feasibility study as outlined in alternative 01. It is my understanding that Bondhus Corporation will be expanding their manufacturing facility and will need the water service in the near future. Copy of petition. CITY OF MONTICELLO PETITION FON LOCAL IMPROVEMENT AND FEASIDILITY STUDY TO THE CITY COUNC ZL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA I (We), Lite undorslyned owncor(s) of Lite property described below petition for a Ieasib111Ly sLudy pursuanL Lo Minnesota SLoLutes, Chaptor 429 (Local imp::oveuiouLs, Special AssessmenLs), for Cho following improvements: Please indicate with an K the improvements requested: Sanitary Sewer Water Storm Sewer Bituminous Surfoclny Curb and CuLter Street Llylitiny I (We) agree Lo pay IOU% of -Lhe cost of Lite feasibility study. I (We) understand Lite CILy Council may pro-raLo the coot of Lite feasibility study nLLv1 buLaLAo Lu my property if Lite scope of Lite study pertains L•o other 1wnc11Lln9 property owners. Description of Property: /hoc Signature of Owners: r IMPPEAS.PETi 9/16/93 /?/Qv Council Agenda - 6110/96 ,, , ,:.:., The Monticello -Big Lake Community Hospital District requests approval of the preliminary plat of the properties owned by the Hospital District, along with the Mississippi Shores property. This is essentially a huge housekeeping item that calls for replatting the existing properties, vacated roadways, and easements into a new plat which more clearly describes the parcels and utility easements. The existing plat under the various parcels originated in 1856 when the original town was platted. Over the years, the hospital, nursing home, garage, Mississippi Shores, clinic, and dental clinic were all placed in locations that are well-suited for operation of the campus but bear little relationship to the underlying lot descriptions on which they are located. What has resulted over the years is a confusing array of legal descriptions outlining odd -shaped parcels and a number of confusing legal descriptions outlining storm water, sanitary sewer, and water easements, etc. The proposed plat consolidates all of the existing parcel and easement data into a streamlined document that could be easily read and interpreted. The main goal for City staff at this time is to make sure that all of the necessary easements requited for city utilities are placed on the final plat and that the new lot lines created replicate the original legal descriptions. You may recall that there has been some discussion of vacating Hart Boulevard and dedicating it to the Hospital District so that the District can use this area for expansion of their parking. As you can see on the preliminary plat, Hart Boulevard and the existing parking area across from the hospital is not included in the preliminary plat. The intent is to complete this parking lot redesign and potential platting at such time that Highway 75 is upgraded. Motion to approve the preliminary plat of the proposed Monticello -Big Lako Community Hospital District Campus. Approval is contingent on the following conditions: Council Agenda - 6/10/96 Utility easements along lot perimeters must be provided as required by code. This means that lot lines along the perimeter of the plat must be bordered by a 12 -ft utility easement; interior lot lines must be bordered by 6 -ft easements on both sides. Also, the final plat must incorporate any additional roadway dedication and/or utility easements found necessary by the City Engineer and public works department. Final plat approval is contingent on vacation of city right-of-way where necessary. Motion to deny approval of the preliminary plat of the Monticello -Big Lake Community Hospital District Campus. C. CTAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat. We've had a pretty good look at the plat and found that recorded easements appear to be in place. We will be taking a final look at the plat prior to final plat development to make doubly sure that all necessary easements are on the plat. Copy of preliminary plat. Council Agenda - 8/10/88 5C. Consideration of an nrdinance jaynendmignt whiph would skitow ground floor elevations to be Illaced at an elevation leas than 1 ft above the street elevation when maitive drainage is a� him ApplicanL Willi Hahn Cnrooration- (j.Q.) This request stems from a request to allow a floor elevation to be established at a level lower than street level when positive drainage can be achieved to the rear or sides of a property. Current code is very rigid in requiring all building pads to be elevated 1 ft above street level, which is not always required to achieve positive drainage. The proposed ordinance will provide flexibility for special situations where adequate drainage can be achieved without raising the elevation of the site. Motion to approve the ordinance amendment based on the fording that the present requirement is too strict. The ordinance amendment will provide flexibility in grading plan design for unique lots that are better suited for drainage to the rear or sides. This is the alternative selected by the Planning Commission Motion to deny adoption of the ordinance amendment. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: I recommend alternative # 1. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Report from Steve Grittman. 1FrNA MAY 0946 NRC 612 595 9831 P. 11/13 Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. C COYYUNITV PLANNING • DESIGN . MARKET RE SE AA CN MEMORANDUM TO: Jeff O'Neill FROM: Bob K mislStephen Grit rm DATE: 30 May 1996 RE: Monticello -Zoning Ordinance - Footing Elevations FILE NO: 191.06-98.03 Attached please find a draft amendment to 9eetlon 32.E of the Zoning Ordinance relating to drainage plans. The draft emandment would allow the ground elavatlon of all dwellings and commeretal and Industrial buildings to exist less than 12 /nines above the flnWW street elevation. Such allowance would. however, be cmUngent upon dernonstnittim of positive draineiae end City Enginear/Building Inspector approval. tf you have any questions regarding this material, please advise. 5775 Wayzata Blvd - Suite 555 - St. Louis Park. MN 55416 - (612) 595.9636-FaxL 595.9837 ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. THE CITY COUNCEL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA, HEREBY ORDAINS THAT TITLE 10, CHAPTER 3, SECTION 2[E] OF THE MONTICELLO CITY CODE, KNOWN AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE, PERTAINING TO DRAINAGE PLAN REQUIREMENTS, BE AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS: [E] DRAINAGE PLANS: In the case of all apartment, business, and industrial developments, a minimum of 3 sets of drainage plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review, and the final drainage plans shall be subject to written approval. Except as otherwise approved by the City Engineer and/or Building Official and upon demonstration of positive drainage, all dwellings and commercial and industrial buildings shall be constructed such that the ground elevation at the building site will be a minimum of twelve (12) inches above finished street elevation at the building access point. The exact, elevation will be determined by the Building Official. All garages and parking facilities shall be situated such that there will be direct and positive drainage to the street access at finished grade elevation. All elevations shall be established prior to issuance of a building permit. Occupancy shall not be granted until the builder certifies conformance with the grading plan for the lot. The developer shall have a registered land surveyor or engineer certify that the development has been rough graded to within tolerance limits according to the grading plan. Adopted by the City Council this 10th day of June, 1898. Mayor City Administrator SG � Council Agenda - 8/10/86 \1 :1 1 : ;1 1 MI -77'; '.'Ill: a Ml a\1. —1 \1 1 :• - �l :I l 111 � Please see the attached report from Steve Grittmam This is a housekeeping ordinance amendment that will improve efficiency by allowing administrative approval of requests to allow deletion of out and gutter in areas of parking lot expansion. Motion to approve alternative A and finding from the attached report. This is the alternative reoommended by the Planning Commission. Motion to deny adoption of the ordinance amendment. r STAFF RECOMMENDATION; I recommend alternative Yl. n SIIPPORTl[NC DATA: Report fitom Steve Grittman. FA MAY 09:45 NRC 612 595 SW? r.V113 Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN • MARKET RESEARCH MEMORANDUM TO: Monticello Planning Comm Jeff O'Neill FROM Stephen Grittman DATE: May 30, 1996 RE: MonNoello - Temporary Curbing Requirements FILE NO: 191.06-96.05 Staff hes recently Deer corllri nted wfth a comber of situations in which the development of a portion of a larger parcel has resulted in a request to be excused from the Curbing requ raments of ft Zoning Ordinance. Currently. the Zoning Ordinance makes the following requirements of perking lots for Commercial and Industrial : • Cortbwow Curb barrier surtourdtrlg entre paAdng lot and driveway • Curb to be 6 Inch non-wrmountabio oalaote These requirements may be avoided In the fb0owfnp fttw=& • Properties in the industrial dishiCta may get Permission front ft Planning Commission and City Council for *Aft around the panting bt oNy to be of a different design. • Properties in the lydudit districts may get a CordMbrtal Use Permit to vary the dow of theirparking and driveway areasbvkxwv as apart of this process, a varlatim for temporary InstaOeUons. Otherwise. the CUP Is handed to be a permenent ` As a result where property owners have wished to construct temporary ImIx pending a later permanent Installation. they haw uses( the CUP This disadvantage of this process is that it is burdensome and time-consuming. In the 5775 Wayzata Blvd. - Suite 555 - St. Louis Park. MN 55416 - (612) 595.9636 -Fax. 595.9837 %0 rr alternative, the hi den may actually acouraga some of the mq mft p A in more general compliance. However, staff Is requesting an Ordinance change which would allow a property owner to tanpm arity avoid the concrete curb reWinament, under certain conditions, with administrathre approval only. ALTERNAIM A Approval of the Zoning Ord'uranee Tera Amendment to permit temporary waiver of the concrete oxWV requirement for hhdua W properties by Adrnhls efNe Permit The Zoning Ordtrov a may be amended upon a ftnding that the proposed amendment Is eonalstem with the Comprethermn Plan. The City should make this finding as a pert of any appy demon AL?ERNATTVE 0 Denial d the Zordng Ordtnanoe TmdAmendiment to permit waiver of the ooi to curbtrp requtrernent for industrial properties by Administrant Permit No epePik finding is necessary to deny to CiVe own application, however a aupgeated finding would be that the errant Orrena m Womp requhtng a CandlUonal Use Permit for rich requests better protects the public huff safety, and general welfare. %WFr8 City of Monte, Mika Ordinance AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 3 OF THE MONTICELLO CITY CODE. KNOWN AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BY CREATING AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL PROCESS FOR TEMPORARY CURBING INSTALLATIONS IN INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS. The City Council of the City of Monticello hereby ordains: Section 1. Section 3-5. Subd. [D] 9.0) ii. is hereby amended to tad as follows: i). AD off -wen driveways aid putting ares in the 1-1 and 1-2 district shall have a continuous, -mnr,, F. „ bb: curb I m 'p . This requirement shall be modified only by the STALL. AISLE. AND DRIVEWAY DESIGN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT as described ba Section 3-5. Subd. [D] 9.4). or. by a permit from the Zoning Admiiimarcr for a portion of the panting and drivoway era which trtPo the foDaviog oonditiau: a The area is shown by adequate site plans and reasonable Swnh to be subject to a future expansion of the driveway and/or parking area. b. 111 area is shown by adequate drainage plans to be able to control drainage n ! by the City Engineer. The Eagioea any approve bhaminow curbing ao a temporary drainage onmrol mawre. C. The are b shown by adev— site plan to be able to control ane trait and circulation as recommended by the City Engineer. The Engineer any approve movable curb stops as a temporary traffic control massae. 6,#CJ 10/13 Seattm 2. Mm Ordmzm shall a" cff= and be to fUH force fmm and after its passage and pbBcWo. Brad F*, M&)w Ar=: Ridgy WOMeHer. Win AYES: NAYS: SW b Council Agenda • 6/10/96 ,� • Please see the attached report from Steve Grittmvn. This is a housekeeping amendment to the ordinance which limits the number of small storage buildings on residential property to one building. There were no objections to this ordinance amendment at the public hearing conducted by the Planning Commission. Motion to adopt alternative A and finding from the attached report. This is the alternative recommended by the Planning Commission. Motion to deny adoption of the ordinance amendment. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: I recommend alternative 01. n_ SUPPORTING DATA: Report from Steve Grittman. FAC Mqv09:44 NRC612 595 9837 P.02i13 Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. COMMUNITY PLANNING • DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCN MEMORANDUM TO: Monticello Plarming Commission Jeff O'Neill FROM: Stephen Grittmsn DATE: May 30,1996 RE MWWWUO - Stomp Sheds and Accessary Building Requirements FILE NO: 191.08-98.04 Rewritty, a property owner had approached the City for a buUdbrg permit to allow the relocation of a detached garage butldhg on his property. Staff was required to advise the applicant that due to the existence of a small storage shed In addition to the detached gamy, a Conditional Use Permit was necessary prior to the issuance of a building permit Pursuant to discussion at a recent PWV ft Commission meeting. staff has proposed the atuadhed Zm" Ordinance text ammtdrnwd which effectively exp one storage shed fr m the cmpostiian of Conditional Use Permit procedaes The amendment sppties to ane WRAP bili bV accessory to a alrgle family home, up to 120 square feet in floor area Such bumps do not neWbe building permits, however they eresubject to all od w zordrq and Ctiy Code performance standard, The proposed Ordnance merely excuses the need for a Conditional Use Pennit. This Ordinance has been designed to appy only to those stonsge shads which are acmasmy to conforming sftle family home». Thus, for nornab* family uses, or for eJro family uses which we rton-eordormtIV due to noniro d*lcil. wtbadrs, or for some oew reason, this excLalon would not appy, and all Ian ft standards (ihdudirt0 the need for a Conditional Use Permit far a second detached accessory buildhg) would be in force. 5775 Wayzata Blvd. - Suite 555 • Sl. Louis Park, MN 55418 • (812) 595.9636•Fax. 595.9837 .Szi+ ALTERNATIVE A Approval of the Zoning Ord nanoe Teod Ameftn t to permita small second detached accessory sMict6n on conforming skVie family lots without a Ca u tionel Use Permit. The Zoning Ordirwm may be amended upas a &tft #0 the proposed amendment is cornistent with the Comprehivisin Plan The City alaudd make this finding as a pat of any apprvval decision. ALTERNATIVE B Denial of the Zoning Ord'naroe Teed Amendment to permit a smalL second detached accessory struckm an single fami1y lots. No specific finding Is racesswy to deny the CWs own applicatlm however a suggested tinding would be that a Ibmta", on the rwrmber of 14 ached accessary shu2L nae In residue areas is necessary to protect the public heats. 8efft and general weMere. ,sz,g MPY-31-1996 09:44 NRC 612 595 907 P.04/13 ' City of Moudoe0o, Mknnesoxa Oxdb ms AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 3 OF THE MONTICELLO CITY CODE. KNOWN AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BY EXCLUDING ONE DETACHED MRAGE SHED PER SINGLE FAMILY HOME FROM CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROCESSING REQUIREMENTS. The City Coaacr7 of die City of Monticello bmby ordains: Sectlou 1. Section 3-2. Suhd. [D) S. is hereby amended to read as follows: S. Each applicant for a building permit to construct any dwelling shall be required to provide off-saeet parking space fax at lean ane (1) automobile per family to be homul in addition to any pop Vm to be used. Subject to the Mowing exception, no pemit shall be issued for do corsattctk m of tae than one (1) private, demchad accessory strttcaae for each dwelling. amp:: L. By Conditions' Use Permit. or b. For cmbmhtg single family dweilbogt. ace (1) detmbed accemy structure of not mora than IM square feet shall be permitted as a second accessory snttcaae without a Conditional Use Pumit. subject to all other applicable codes and ttandutb. Seedon 3. This Ordinance shall taloa elm and be in full fans ltnm ad afkt in paeaage and publlcatiom ATTEST: Rhd<'Wol&teller. Administrator AYES: NAYS: Brad Fyfe. MaiiOr S2 CJ 612 595 9837 P. 05.,13 � measurements of such area or width are within seventy-five (75) percent of the requirements of this ordinance. 4. Except in the case of planned unit development as provided for in Chapter 20 of this ordinance, not more than one (1) principal building shall be located on a lot. The words "principal building" shall be given their common, ordinary meaningi in case of doubt or on any question or interpretation, the decision of the Building Inspector shall be final, subject to the right of appeal to the Planning Commission and City Council. 5. On a through lot (a lot fronting on two (2) parallel streets), both street lines shall be front lot lines of applying the yard and parking regulations of this ordinance. -3-7 (DJ ACCESSORY BUILDINGS,. USES, AND EQUIPMENT: 1. An accessory building shall be considered an integral part of the principal building if it is connected to the principal building either directly or by an enclosed passageway. 3. No accessory building shall be erected or located within any required yard other than the rear yard. 3. Accessory buildings and garages shall not exceed fifteen (15) feet in height and shall be ten (10) feet or more from all side lot linea of adjoining lots, five (5) feet or more from the rear lot line, shall be ten (10) foot or more from any other building or structure on the same lot, and shall not be located within a utility easement. 4. No accessory building or garage shall occupy more than twenty-five (25) percent of a rear yard, nor' exceed one thousand (1,000) square feet of floor area. a S. No permit shall be issued for the construction of more than one (1) private accessory structure for each dwelling. Each applicant for a building permit to construct any dwellings shall be required 'd to provide off-street parking space for at least one (1) automobile per. family to be housed in addition to any garage space tobe used. S s CURRENT ZONING ORDINANCE LANGUAGE MONTICELLO EONING ORDINANCE 3/5 r 5�� MAY -31-1996 89:45 NAC 612 595 983'7 P.06i13 X(H) All detached structures not requiring a building permit that do not conform to the following requirements shall be deemed a public nuisance. 1. All such detached structures shall be constructed of uniform building grade material. 2. All sides, roof, and floor shall be securely fastened to the interior frame of said detached structure. 3. All surfaces of such detached structures shall be stained, sealed, or painted. 4. Exterior metal surfaces shall be treated with materials designed to resist corrosion. S. Structures that do not have slab floors shall have a rodent barrier that extends 8 inches under the surface of the ground along the perimeter of the outside wall of the structure. 6. All such detached structures shall be permanently anchored to the ground. 7. Storage sheds erected after the adoption of the zoning ordinance shall meet district setback requirements. 8. Detached structures shall be erected in the side or rear yard of any residence. (7/10/89, #178) (4/9/90, 0185) 7-1-21 EXCEPTIONS: The provisions of this chapter do not apply to the hauling or accumulation or epreac2ing of manure for the purposes of agriculture, nor to the natural and usual accumulation of rubbish from one residence on the owner's own premises, provided the public health is not adversely affected thereby. ( 11/23/B1, #109) 7-1-31 PUBLIC RUISARM (A) 1aclesoano;s. Whoever commits any of the following acts is guilty o n misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than $700 and by imprisonment in the county jail of not mase than 90 days 1. Consumption of intoxicating liquor or non -intoxicating liquor in public or in other places proh ibltod by law except as provided by law. 2. Strewing,scattering, littering, throwing, or disposing of any garbage or refuse onto any premises except into receptacles provided for such purposes. CITY CODE LANGUAGE MONTICSL ZU CITY ORDINANCE TITLE VII/Chet 1/Page 3 szE Council Agenda - 6/10/98 Bob Grabinski requests permission to blend prairie grass plantings onto his rear yard landscaping plan. The prairie grasses he proposed will be located in a drainage swale and will be introduced to the county ditch recently graded in conjunction with the Oak Ridge project. The prairie grasses will border a single family lot on only one side of the lot. The owner of the adjoining lot has indicated support for Grabinski's request. The Planning Commission viewed pictures of the site and voted unanimously to support Grabinski's plan. Grabinski will be present to show the pictures if Council wishes to remove this item from the consent agenda. Motion to approve native grass planting as requested. Motion to deny the planting of native grasses as requested. I recommend approval. The location of the native grass planting is adjacent to a ditch adjacent to an unmanicured township area to the rear of the lot. Also, the neighboring property to the north will not be negatively affected by the planting. Map of site; Pictures to be provided at the meeting if necessary. GAt._6lNSX1 HaL��QQ Nem Council Agenda - 6/10/96 5K. Conaideratioa of annoLtment to FACA= on L•ibrwry Board- (R.W.) As you may recall from the annual appointments in January, the Library Board had a vacancy to a 3 -year term that had never been filled due to expire December 31, 1996. Even after advertising in the newspaper, Marge Bauer had not received any interested applicants for appointment. As a result, we again noted in our last quarterly newsletter that there was a vacancy, and Marge did receive two applications for the vacancy, one from a previous board member, Patricia Schwarz, and from Jeanette Lukowski. Both individuals are Monticello residents, but it was recommended by Marge that the Council consider appointing Jeanette Lukowski to fill the unexpired term, as she felt Jeanette might bring new insight to the Board being a new member to the community and because of her interest in serving on a City committee. Based on the recommendation of the Librarian, appoint Jeanette Lukowski to fill the unexpired term on the Library Board. Appoint Patricia Schwarz to fill the unexpired term. Do not appoint either applicant and continue to seek additional interested parties. C- STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the recommendation of Marge Bauer, Librarian, I would also support the recommendation to appoint Jeanette Lukowski. D. SUPPORTING DATA: None. Council Agenda - 6/10/96 Consideration of a nearest for a conditional use nerrmt wb ♦ch world_ callow, operation of a car wasah in a 4 zone, App i nt, Dan �d UndB Mielke. (J.0.) A IFFFRIFNrF AND BA .KORO iND: Please review the attached report from Steve Gritt man. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Motion to adopt alternative A in the attached report, which allows the conditional use permit under the design as proposed. Please note that this design was not supported by the Public Works Director and City Engineer because of the concern that this design would result in water trailing onto the service drive, which would create ice on the private drive leading to the Subway Shop. The Planning Commission reviewed the "tunnel" car wash design and was convinced by the applicant that the majority of the water is removed from the vehicle prior to exit from the property. Each wash will be followed by a mandatory blow-dry; thus the Planning Commission supported the site plan design as submitted. Motion to deny the conditional use permit to allow a car wash in a B-3 zone. City Council should select this alternative if it believes that the site plan should be modified in a manner that would limit water on the private drive. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Subsequent to Planning Commission review, I visited a tunnel car wash at a Holiday Store in Maple Grove and found that water does trail off vehicles for a distance of at least 60 ft from the point of car wash exit. The Holiday manager informed me that ice does form in the car wash exit area beyond the 20 -ft heated exit pad; however, the problem is manageable with application of salt. He also noted that the ice in part is caused by a very high volume of car wash trek. In Monticello, ice will be less likely to form and easy to manage because the volume of use will not be great. It is my recommendation that the car wash be approved only with the added condition that the shared frontage road must be kept clear of ice. Report from Stove Grittman. MAY -31-1996 1107 IWC ei[ D= 70.r r.r iu , FNrINA Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. C COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH PLANNING REPORT TO: Monticello Mayor and City Council Monticello Planning Commission FROM: Bob Kumm'Stephen Gnttman DATE: 31 May 1996 RE: Monticello - Kiska CUP Amendment FILE NO: 191.07 - 96.05 BACKGROUND Dan and Linda Wake have requested an amendment to the previousy approved conditional use permit (ExacuAmbe automobile service facility) to allow Ute addition of a maclumioel car wash cornpora t The site in question is located south of Oakwood Drive and east of Highway 25 and is zoned B.3, Highway Business. The B-3 District Ilsts car washes as a conditional use. Attached for reference: Exhibit A - Site Location Exhibit B - Site Plan Exhibit C - Design Alternative 18SUES ANALYSIS Project History. Several months ao, the City approved a Conditional use permit to establish an axpress lube facility upon tM suboct property. Sino that time, the devebPment pianshave changed such that a madwllal carwash r ', has been proposed Beaune the Introduction of such use substantially dmW the previously approved development plan, the proceang of o conditional use permit amendment Is nocessary. 5775 Wayzata Blvd. - Suite 555 - St. Louis Perk. MN 55416 - (612) 595 -9636 -Fax. 595.98.9' b11 W-5 Jbj, r.,oy to CUP Review Criteria. The purpose of the required conditional use permit process is to enable the City Council to assign dimensions to a proposed use after consideration of adjacent uses. The process provides the City of Monticello a reasonable degree of discretion in determining the suitability of cartain designated uses upon the general welfare, public health, and safety of its citizens. Procedurally, the Ple ming Commission and City Council must consider the possible adverse effects of the proposed conditional use. Its judgement must be based upon, but not limited to, the following factors: 1. Relationship to Municipal Comprehensive Plan 2. The geographical area involved. 3. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. 4. The character of the surrounding area. 5. The demonstrated need for such use. While certain concerns odd in regard to site functioning, It is believed that through proper site design, the proposed use can compatibly exist upon the subjed property. Service Road. As shown on the submitted site plan, the throe automobile service bays and car wash are to exit onto the Highway 25 service road. While the service road is acknowledged to lie within privately owned property, it does in fact function as a public roadway. In this regard, It is believed various performance standards which relate to public street rights-dwM should be considered applicable (i.e., curb cut requirements). Of particular corxem with the proposed site design Is the proxindty of the service bay/car wash exit doors to the service road and the proposed curb cut width (65 feet). Such condition raises the following concems: 1. The proposed 65 foot curb cut width Is approximately 40 feet greater than that which would be allowed if the site were to aceess to a'publid service road. The proposed curb cut condition is less than Ideal in cerins of safety mid the efficient movement at tmfnor— P( f- it t, -to to 06, 1 4, P .. —44 A. td'.. a {.. l 01,x, • r. a.. t. eoIid:C'-c /cad .0 io rht 5✓ro dA00 2. It is likely that water from the car wash component will accumulate on the service road. Such condition is not desirable. 3. An 18 foot driveway exists between the prirutpal strucarro and the service road curb line. Such limited driveway length may result In vehicle encroachment in the service road. (V 6 4. Traffic visibility concerns may exist for multiple vehicles wishing to access the service road simultaneously. To address the aforementioned concerns, consideration should be given to shifting or repositioning the building in a mariner similar to that illustrated upon attached Exhibit C. Setbacks. As shown below, the proposed structure meets all applicable k3.3 Distrid setback requirements. RegtdW Proposed Front Yard 30 feet 48 feet Side Yard 10 fed 10 feet Rear Yazd 3o fed e3 fed ORStreet Parking. Pari ft Supply. As calculated below, the proposed use is required to provide nine off-street parking stalls. Ults Automobile Maintenance Facility (3 service bays) Car Wash' Required Two spaces plus two 8 specea per service bay One space for each 1 employee on maximum a" TOTAL 8 Stacking space not applicable to off-street perking supply requirements. NOTE. One full time employee for car wash assumed. With an otfetrest perldng supply of ten spares, applicable off-street parking requirements have been met. Dimenslonai Requirements. Ali proposed parking steiks and drive aisles have been found to meat or wnoasd minimum Ordinance requirements. 3 400 Handicap Stalls. In accordance with American Disability Act requirements, one oft -street handicap parking stall has been provided upon the subject site. Curbing. In accordance with Zoning Ordinance requirements, all off-street parking areas must be provided a six Inch non -surmountable concrete curb. Curb Cut As shown on the submitted site plan, the sutrjed property is to be accessed via the HVT*W 25 service road Spevflcally, a 65 foot wide cub M has been proposed. Acceding to the Ordinance, curb cut widths within commercial zoning districts may not exceed 24 feet unless approved by the City Engineer and Zoning Administrator. While it is aGcrowledged that the service road lies within private property, the fad that the service road functions as a'publie" street in this case makes the City cub cut standards valid. To address this issue, consideration should be given to reducing the cub out width to comply with City standards. This issue should be subod to further conunen by fhe City I;fgk%w. The proposed repositioning of the building would accomplish this objective. Surfacing. In accordance with Ordinance requirements, ft proposed off-street parking area is to be surfaced in a bihrnhous material. Loading. The Zoning Ordinance does not provide a spedffc off-street loading requirements for uses such as that being proposed. As a condition of CUP approval, however, a specific oft -street loading space should be designated upon the submitted site Ian• Ughting. It has not been indicated whether any eft im lighting Is to be provided on site. Any lighting used to illuminate off-street parking or outdoor storage areas must be hooded and directed to deflect light may from adjacent properties and public righ"-way. Signage. As a condition of CUP approval, all applicable City sign requirements must be satisfied. Grading and Dralnaga As a condition of CUP approval, s grading and drainage plan must be submami Such plan will be subject to review and approval by ft City Engineer. Tnuft In accordance with Ordk>erfce requirements, all trash henciling equipment Is to be stored within a concrete block enclosure and screened from view of neighboring properties. r ar-31-19% 11:08 Design Alternative. To address the concerns cited in this report and aid in the development of an improved site design, a design alternative has been prepared (attached as E>atibit C). Such atemative is intended simply as a reference tool which demonstrates a possible means to resolve various site drariationtservlce road access concerns. City Actlon. The applkants have requested a conditional use pemrit amendment to allow the addition of a car wash cornponent to a previously approved automobile service facility. DECISION - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR A CAR WASH Alternative A - Conditional Use Pemdt Anrendnient Approval (whit Conditions) This alternative would allow the establishment of a cat wash facility in conjunction with the previously approved &Aarnabile sennoe center. We reoommend approval of the requested conditional use permit an andment sut> W to the following findings and conditions: Altomative A Findings 1. The proposed project Is consistent with the spirit and Intent of the Monticello Comprehensive Plan goals and policies and in keeping with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. The proposed project is consistent with the purpose of the performance standards of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The proposed project will not have any adverse Impacts as outlined in the conditional use permit section of the Zoning Ordinance. 4. The proposed project shall provide adequate parking and Wading as outlined heroin. 5. The proposed protect shall not impose any undue burden upon public facilities and services. 6. The proposed project is designed in such a manner to form a desirable and unified onvironmert within ifs boundaries which VIII not be detrimental to future land uses In surrounding areas. Architecture and site treatments shall be compatible with adjacent structures and site plans artd shall request the privacy of neighboring businesses. W 6i Alb motive A Conditions 1. Consideratlori is givenlo recoMtguring,ft site's pnndpal-struchue in—s manner OJ� su6stentialy simiWto thatiitustratgd upon E)ftbit Cr- % 2�� Tie City gmeW provide colmment and recommendation in and to- the 0 arcceptability of ttte propose l'65 foot ode aub-Eut 3. An off-street loading space Is provided and specifically identified upon the submitted site plan. 4. Any lighting (new or wdsting) used to IUuminate the off-street parking area be hooded and directed to deflect light away from adjacent properties and public rights -of-". S. Any new signage erected upon the subject site comply with applicable City sign regulations. 6. The City Engineer provide corm wd and recornmendation in regard to grading and drainage Issues. AlCemativ9 9 - Go on) Uad Parndt Arnendm t 0anhd A second alternative avabft to the City would be to deny the requested conditlonal use permit amendment H the City chooses to deny the request, such action should be based upon the following findings. Altemattve B Flndtngs 1. The proposed use is not consistent with Cha spMt and Intent of the► Monticello Comprehensive Plan end Zoning Ordinance. Z. TThe proposed use is Ukey to have an advarsa I upon shurohanding propeRies. PC: Jeff O'Neill V� 612 5 .ue/hfJ.jii tri- 31`19% i> 09 - ' MtGkWAY NQ 94 ? t lXWB� �' ' giTfl 10�p�ON GoG MINNESOTA STATE HIGHWAY ..,NO.25 \ ; � BCIVIM ROAD .. \ �\ ------------. �.1 ------- ------------ - ------'� C' It 1 1 1 1 1 1 I{ � tl we \ \ \�. �� rr• .s✓ Is' \ \A \ 10 0� Q 1 Z� 6t StiaV�C� Pte' �y Council Agenda - 8/10/98 Clonsideration of a codido al naw permit whic-h would allow operation of a coffee aMop and delicatessen- ApplicauL Sandra (J.O.) A_ RF,RFRF.NrR ANn M .K .RO iNfl; Please see the attached report from Steve Grittman. B_ ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to deem coffee shop and delicatessen as a PZM use and not a 8-3 use based on the finding that the drive-through is a minor aspect of the business and will not regularly experience more than three vehicles stacked at the drive-through window at any one time. Also, motion to adopt alternative A as noted in the attached report on page 4, which grants a conditional use permit allowing the proposed change in use. 2. Motion to deny the conditional use permit allowing operation of a coffee shop and delicatessen. C_ STAFF F. .O NOATION; I recommend alternative ill. D_ SUPPORTING DATA: Report from Steve Grinner. 21 RA MPY 11NR29 C 612 S9S 9837 P.02/10 Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. C CO MMUNIT Y PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RE SE Ail CN PLANNING REPORT TO: Monticello Mayor and City Council FROM: Bob Iarmis/Staphen Grlttman DATE: 31 May 1996 RE: Monticello - Total Mari CUP Amendment FILE NO: 191.07 -96.06 BACKGROUND Ms. Sandra Johnson and Mr. Marlin Besler have requested a condWonal use permit amendment to establish a cones shopldelicatessan (with a driv&dvough component) within a portion of the a Total Mart .. i:, ., gas facility located north of Highway 75 and west of County Road 118. Such it was pmvin ady oecupled by a bait shop. The subject property Is zoned PZM, Pertonnance Zoned Mixed which lists delicatessens and gas station/convenience stores as conditional uses. Attached for reference: Exhibit A - Site location Exhibit B - Site Plan Exhibit C - Floor Plan ISSUES ANALYSIS use DetenNnation. As mentioned previously, the applicants are proposing to locate a cofGe shop/doiicamsson vA hln an ehdeting Total Mort convenience gas facUly. While the applicable PZM zoning designation lists delicatessens as conditional uses, the 'drive- through window' component of the delicatessen Is, however, not specifically referenced as an allowable use. The PZM District allows only 8-1 and 84 District permitted uses. The City& B-3, Highway Business District (Trot appUeaele) specifically accommodates uses with drive-through window features. According to the zoning Ordinance, uses not 5775 Wayzata Blvd.' State 555 - St. Louis Park. MN 55416 • (612) 595 -9636 -Fax. 595.9837 74- specifically listed within a zoning district shall be considered prohibited It is the opinion of our office that the term 'delicatessen' cannot be construed to automatically Include a drive-through window component. The allowance of such feature is also contrary to the purpose of the PZM District which is to provide a burisitlon between high density residential uses and low intensity business land uses. An alternative to the omission of the drive-through window Is that the City could make a determination that the delicatessen does not In fact constitute a convenience food establishment. The Zoning Ordinance defines a convenience food establishment as: An establishment which exclusively serves food In or on disposal or edible containers in individual servings for consumption on or off the premises. As part of the CUP consideration, a determination should be made by the City as to wtie&w the'delicatessen' qualifies as a 'convenience food establishment'. If a positive determination is made, removal of the drive-through window will be necessary. CUP Review Cdterta The purpose of the conditional use permit process is to enable the City Council to assign dimensions to a proposed use alter consideration of adjacent land uses and their functions. In this regard, the City of Monticello Is provided a reasonable degree of discretion in determining the suitability of certain designated uses upon the general welfare, public health and safety of Its citizens. Procedurally, the Planning Commission and City Council must consider the possible adverse effects of the proposed conditional use. Its judgement shall be be upon, but not limited to, the following factors: Relationship to the Municipal Comprehensive Plan. The geographical area involved. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it Is proposed. The character of the surnmWing area. The demonstrated need for such use. While tho physical limits of the she's principal buitding will not change as a result of the proposed use, such acthrity may result In an Increase In site activity through increased parking goneration. The proposed use Is not, however, expected to greatly alter the dleraaor of tho use. In this regard, it is believed that the coffee ahop/delkatessen can compatibly exist upon the subject property, provided all applicable pertormance standards aro met. M MAY -31-19% 1129 Drive -Through Window. If the City determines that the proposed delicatessen does not constitute a convenience food establishment, the drive-through window component may be retained. In terms of design and circulation. some concems do, however, exist with the drive-through window. As currently proposed, only three stacking spaces are provided. (Additional vehicim would block Interior site trafflQ) if allowed, the driveahrough window and site circulation pattern should be revised so that not less than six stacking spaces are provided in a mariner which does not disrupt site circulation. Off -SUM Parking. Parking Supply. As calculated below, the proposed use (including the convenience store) is required to provide 30 off-street parking stalls. Required Convenience Store 1 space per 200 SF 14.2 3,152 SF X.9 (ZS37 SF) of floor area Dining Area 1 space per 40 SF 9.5 422 SF X.9 (380 SF) of floor area Krtchen 1 space per 80 SF 5.6 497 SF X.9 (447 SF) of floor area — 29.3 NOTE Pump !stand spaces do not qualify as off-street parking spaces With an off-street perking supply of 31 stalls, applkeble off-street paring requiremonts have been cost DirtwWatnal Rogalrements. Assuming the proposed Vive through' lane is to be omitted, all proposed paring stalls and drive aisles have been found to meet or exceed minimum Ordinance requirements. Handicap Stalls. In accordance with American Disability Act roquhNnents, two off-street her dieap parking stalls have been provldsd upon the subject site. Curbing. in accordance with Zoning Ordnaneo requiromwts, all offer perking areas must be provided a six Inch non-surmourable concrete curb. 3 Curb Cut As shown on the submitted site plan, the subject property is to be accessed from the north and west. No changes to the existing club cut conditions are proposed. Loading. According to the Zoning Ordinance, retail sales activities are regWred to provide an off-strest loading space. As a condition of CUP approval, an off-street loading Q pace should be provided In accordance with Ordinarhm requiremerns and Illustrated upon the site plan. Lighting. It has not been indicated whether any new exterior lighting is to be provided on site. Any lighting used to illuminate off-street parking must be hooded and directed to deflect light away from adjacent properties and public rights-of-way. Signage. As a condition of CUP approval, the applicants should demonstrate that all signage on the subject site complies with applicable City sign requirements. Trash. While the submitted site plan identifies two small sheds on the north side of the principal building, the plan does not indicate whether they are used for the storage of trash. If a trash receptacle Is to be stored outside the principal struch , such storage location should be illustrated upon the site plan. Additionally, such rersptaola must be screened from view of neighboring properties. City Action. The applicants have submitted plans to establish a coffee shhop/dellcmasson within a portion of the existing Total Mart convenience gas facility. DECISION • CONDITIONAL USE PEWIT AMENDMENT FOR A DELICATESSEN Att madve A 'Conditional Use Permit: Ant minnent Approval (With Condltliotts) This attemeUve would allow the establishment of a coffee shop/delicatessan within a portion of the alsting Total Mart cortmenee gas facility. We recomunend approval of the requested conditional use permit sulgact to the following findings and cortdillons, Alternative A Findings The proposed project Is consistent with the spirit and Intent of the Monticello CornprehensWe Plan goats and policies and in keeping with the Inkmt of tine Zoning Ordinance. The proposed pm)ed is consistent with Mta purpose of the porformanca standards of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The proposed project will not have any adverse impacts as outlined in the conditional use permit section of the Zoning Ordinance. 4. The proposed project shall provide adequate perking and loading as outlined herein. 5. The proposed project shall not impose any undue burden upon public facilities and services. 6. The proposed project is designed In such a manner to forth a desirable and unified environment within Its boundaries which will not be detrimental to hfiue land use In surrounding areas. Architecture and site treatments shall be compatible with adjacent structures and site plans and shall request the privacy of neighboring businesses. Altemathre A Conditions 1. The City make e determirmbon as to whether the proposed delicatessen constitutes a'convenience food establishr we. If a positive determination Is made, the drive- through window, shall be ellmiruded. If a negative detenninaUen is made. the drive- through window and site circulation patterns shall be revised such that a minimum of six stacking spaces are provided in a manner which does not disrupt site tragic patterns. 2. An off-street loading space Is provided and specifically identified upon the submitted site plan. 3. Any lighting (new or existing) used to illuminate the off-street parking area be hooded and directed to deflect light away from adjacent properties and public rights-of-way. 4. Any new signage erected upon the subject site comply with applicable City sign regulations. S. The site plan is revised to Illustrate exterior trash handling locations. All trash handling equipment shall be screened from view of adjacent properties. f�ed4n 5, (r ...flr.......i�/ . i��rfU �n��Sr a A•y 5 q6- Alternative 0 - ConclMonal use Permit amendment cental A second alternadve wabble to the City would be to deny the r"Mted oordftional use permit �..a , K the C4 chooses to decry the request, such anion should be based upon the following findings: Altemadve B Findings The proposed use Is not consistent with ft q*ft and intent of the Monticello Comprely alve Ften and Zoning Ordinance. The proposed use is Mu* to have an adverse impact upon ojTwru ft properties. pe: Jeff O'Neill John Koamaa (via fax 920-20M) tva , 16. ovall rPY-31-1996 11;31 NRC 612 59y 9tl3r P.vvii0 n POST B • WE PLAN '1H- rpt n POST B • WE PLAN '1H- R Council Agenda - 8/10/86 (R.W.) I was recently contacted by Mr. Ed Wern, Master of the Masonic Lodge in Monticello, concerning the Masonic Lodge's proposal to transfer control of the Riverside Cemetery to the City of Monticello. According to background information supplied by Mr. Werra, the Monticello Lodge has been overseeing the Riverside Cemetery for over 100 years. The interest in continuing to operate the cemetery is apparently decreasing by Lodge members; and as a result, they are requesting that the City of Monticello consider taking over the entire operation, including recordkeeping, lot sales, mowing and cleanup activities, and whatever else is associated with running a cemetery. From the information provided, Lodge members feel that the finances of the cemetery are in the beat shape they've been for the past few years, and now would be the time to turn over control to someone else. From the City's standpoint, staff is certainly aware that taking over maintenance and operation of the Riverside Cemetery would require the City to contract for mowing and leaf cleanup and to seek an arrangement with an individual or individuals to manage the day-to-day operations for keeping the books, showing the plots, staking of grave sites, and handling all sales, etc. At the present time, the public works department would not have sufficient personnel nor the time available to take on this cemetery unless additional personnel were hired or the activities were contracted to private firms. According to the Masonic Lodge information, they feel that there is sufficient annual income to cover the operational expenses, but they are also figuring some volunteer help from Lodge members in arriving at this determination. It is estimated that the cemetery would have to be mowed every two weeks at a cost of approximately $500 per time during the summer months, which would probably amount to about 10-12 moorings for a total of $5,000 to $6,000 annually. In addition, there would need to be some time spent in raking and removing the leaves in the fall, which would probably amount to $1,000 or more on a contract basis. Added to these maintenance amounts is the cost of hiring an individual to oversee the duties of keeping the books, plot records, showing plots to prospoctive buyers, and staking of the lots for funerals. During the spring, fall, and summer months, Lodge member Bill Kenrin has performed these duties on a volunteer basis. During the winter months, the Lodge has contracted with Mary Bray to perform these duties at $300 per month. If the City is to operate the cemetery, we would have to contract on an annual basis for a similar amount, which would add an additional $3,600 or more per year to our expenditures. As a result, it is estimated that the cost for operating the cemetery in the fashion that is being Council Agenda - 6/10/96 done by the Masonic Lodge would be between $8,000 and $10,000 annually at a minimum; and it would still require someone from the City to still oversee the entire operation. Again, I'm not sure who would ultimately be the responsible party; but with any City control on the daily operation, it will be hard to contract all responsibility out to private individuals, and additional time will be needed by some City staff. The idea of turning over control of the cemetery to the City had surfaced a number of years ago; and when the City Council did not express any interest in doing so, the idea was dropped. It appears that the Lodge is serious about discontinuing their running of the cemetery, but that does not mean that the City is required to take over the operation. There may possibly be other organizations in existence within the community that could do the same, although it is unlikely some group will step forward. If the Lodge discontinues the operation and the City does not take over control, it's anybody's guess as to how the facility would be maintained or whether it would eventually become an eyesore. In regard to any City requirement to operate a cemetery, I did ask City Attorney Paul Weingarden as to whether a municipality could be forced into taking over an abandoned cemetery. Paul noted that it is legal for a city to expend funds and, in some cases, they do operate cemeteries; but there is not a requirement that we would have to do so if it is abandoned. To briefly summarize, I do not believe the current City staff has the time available to keep records and manage the cemetery operations, nor do we have the time to take on the additional mowing and spring and fall cleanups that would be required. If the City is to take over control, we would have to contract for the mowing and cleanup, along with a contract for digging grave sites, and also find an individual to operate the facility on a daily basis. If the revenue estimates for the last two years are accurate, there may be sufficient funds from annual sales of plots to cover the expenditures; but it would be unlikely that any monies would be available for a perpetual care fund increase. `- Council could agree to continuo investigating tha feasibility of taking over control of the Riverside Cemetery. The Council could decline to accept control at this time. Council Agenda - 6/10/96 C_ STAFF F..O NDATION: From a simple time and cost factor, the Public Works Director and myself would prefer not to become involved in running another cemetery. While the City does maintain the Hillside Cemetery, we are more involved simply in mowing and debris cleanup than we are in overall management since this facility is already filled and there have only been a couple funerals in the last 20 years at this cemetery. Taking over control of the Riverside Cemetery will involve running this operation for many years to come; and unless the City is willing to add additional staff, it is assumed the operation would have to be contracted to private individuals. As to what happens if the Masonic Lodge simply abandons the cemetery, it remains to be seen whether some other organization or local churches band together to form an association, or whether public preseure to eliminate a blight will be enough reason to force the City into some type of maintenance. Tm not sure if the Masonic Lodge has investigated any alternatives other than turning over control to the City. My guess is that we are the likely choice and that there are probably not other organizations willing to take on such a responsibility. D. RUPPORTING DATA: Copy of background information from Masonic Lodge; City Attorney's opinion regarding City control. 24 May 21, 1996 Proposal: To Transfer control of Riverside Cemetery from Monticello Masonic Lodge to the City of Monticello, effective date to be decided, but prefer before 11/1/96. Background Monticello Lodge di 16 has been overseeing Riverside Cemetery for over 100 years. The duties involved Include: Keeping the books Keeping the plots accurately Showing plots to prospective buyers Overseeing the care of the grounds (spring and fall cleanup, mowing) Staking graves Over the past few years it has become increasingly obvious to us that we cannot continue to maintain the cemetery. Need someone in town, who can be on call, to show pk>ffi. Our median age is over 55, and is increasing. Those members who are young enough either commute, do not have enough fine to devote to it, or are not interested The cemetery and its funds are in the best shape for the past 10 years We have therefore decided that we must discontinue running the cemetery. Inmasingy, cities in the surrounding area are taking over the management of them local cemeteries. Since the cemetery is currently in good condition, and since the books, plot maps, etc, are currently up to date, now would be an ideal time for the Wry to take over control of the cemetery. Some specifics as to the current status of Riverside cemetery: Number of Groves available 1430 NOW EadWdes usrronty aredakned pravesuos. Current cost per grave $350 Total unreaUzedrevenue $500,500 Average graves sold per year 30 Years left, without reclaiming 46 NOW'Can MdWM Mr 60 yeue no u -e Past two years income and expenses. Year Income Expense Net 1994 $13,697 $9,511 $4,188 NOW awnta of -s armory Lunde m t9s9 acre 1995 $10,575 58,005 $4,570 -ppm $1,400 Amount currentty in Mutual Funds (Perpetual care money) $19,344 Nofe: As ar Y31196. Also NOW awt ►era Stue torr PMft s epmd ft Perpehlsl Care ft r VnW em oenetary is tun. Amount in regular cher" account - for general expenses $10,671 Note: As of S122M. These knit are uae for he ramal avwn= of the omratmy. Total amount in control of the RivenWe Cemetery $30,215 The major expense throughout the year is for mowing the cemetery. The cemetery omtracts this out for $500 per mowing. We expect that this figure would not increase if the c ernetery were under the city's control. Our Request We are looking for agreement from the city council to take over management of Rivarside Cernetary. This transfer would intdude moving d cemetery funds and plot naps to the city and training the appropriate personnel as to the steidng of graves. We would require that there be no future liability to the Lodge, and that the transfer take puce before November 1, 1996 if possible. Submitted by Ed Wem, Master of Monticello Lodge 016. 295-4639 Please feel free to call me with any questions or oom rents, or any of the other members of trre cemetery committee of the lodge: Bill Kearin, Bill Sparrow, Lyle Smith and Peter Lindquist. May 21. 1996 low OLSON, USSET & WEINGARDEN P.L.L.P. ouR FmE No. 7975 June 5, 1996 Via Facsimile and United States Mail Rick Wolfsteller City of Monticello 250 East Broadway Monticello, MN 55362 Re: Cemetery Associations Dear Rick: I am in receipt of your concern in this matter and respond as follows. Under Minnesota law, cemeteries that have been abandoned may be maintained by the County. Under Minnesota Statutes 5306.243, Subd. 1, a County Board may appropriate general revenue funds it deems necessary for improvement and maintenance of a cemetery within the County, whether or not the cemetery within the corporate limits of a town or statutory city, when the cemetery has been abandoned or neglected and the association having been in charge of the cemetery has disbanded or fails to act. Management and supervision of maintenance and care of the abandoned cemetery must be delegated by the County Board to the County Highway Department or some existing cemetery association. That organization is responsible to the County Board for its acts. See Minnesota Statutes 5306.243, Subd. 3. I note that under Minnesota Statutes 5306.246 a County, City or Town may disburse funds for the general maintenance of abandoned or neglected cemeteries. Further, Cities May purchase cemeteries from a public cemetery association. See Minnesota Statutes 5306.023, Subd. 1. There does not, however, appear to be any requirement that the City act in ouch a manner. I trust that this information is sufficient for your needs. PAW:lld y a e 49U ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITE 710 000 PARK GLEN ROAD PAIR. A. WEIINGARDFN• MQRIPAPOLIS, MIN 53416 LEGAL ASSISTANTS DAVM 1. USSET DEBRA BAKKE THOMAS B. OLSON•• TELEPHONE (612) 923-"U PATSY FORSLAND DENNIS E. DALFN PAX (612) 92S-5129 KIM FORTIN Y65A C -d Rd P—ty SP -d" BONNIE TRONNES "MMA Cad6d Chit Tin 6Pai,Rv ROCKFORD OFFICE TELEPAONE (612) 477-3010 ouR FmE No. 7975 June 5, 1996 Via Facsimile and United States Mail Rick Wolfsteller City of Monticello 250 East Broadway Monticello, MN 55362 Re: Cemetery Associations Dear Rick: I am in receipt of your concern in this matter and respond as follows. Under Minnesota law, cemeteries that have been abandoned may be maintained by the County. Under Minnesota Statutes 5306.243, Subd. 1, a County Board may appropriate general revenue funds it deems necessary for improvement and maintenance of a cemetery within the County, whether or not the cemetery within the corporate limits of a town or statutory city, when the cemetery has been abandoned or neglected and the association having been in charge of the cemetery has disbanded or fails to act. Management and supervision of maintenance and care of the abandoned cemetery must be delegated by the County Board to the County Highway Department or some existing cemetery association. That organization is responsible to the County Board for its acts. See Minnesota Statutes 5306.243, Subd. 3. I note that under Minnesota Statutes 5306.246 a County, City or Town may disburse funds for the general maintenance of abandoned or neglected cemeteries. Further, Cities May purchase cemeteries from a public cemetery association. See Minnesota Statutes 5306.023, Subd. 1. There does not, however, appear to be any requirement that the City act in ouch a manner. I trust that this information is sufficient for your needs. PAW:lld y a e 49U Council Agenda - 6/10%996 . O.S.) I have received word from the Monticello Community Partners that they would like the City Council to consider a new look for the water tower during its upcoming repainting n>eintenance. I am, therefore, asking the City Council to authorize staff to prepare specifications for repainting the old water tower using at least two colors and the Monticello W Logo. I would further ask the City Coundl to authorize City staff to seek bids based upon those specifications. I will include in the specifications the ability to choose or negotiate the final colors after the award. This would give the Monticello Community Partners, City staff, and Council some additional time to select the final colors. Since 1 already have a couple quotes for painting the water tower aluminum, we will be able to weigh the benefits of going with colors and a better painting system after review of the bids. B. ALTFRNATIVF ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative is to authorize staff to advertise for bids for painting of the water tower based upon specifications that call for a two-color system and the Monticello Logo, with the bids returnable the morning of July 8, 1888, to be reviewed at that evenirng's Council meeting. 2. The second altemative would be not to prepare specifications for a color system nor advertise for bids. C STAFF RR.COMNLF.NDATION: It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that the City Council authorize preparation of specifications based upon a two-color system and the Monticello Logo for the old water tower and to advertiao for bids as outlined in alternative 01. Copy of letter ftm Monticello Community Partners. Community pariners [%�'�( `� I•ri It. ,, 9l1.1 Ibnui�clf•,. i•li'1 �',SG� June 5, 1996 Dear John, To recap our telephone conversation of June 5. The Design Committee of Monticello Community Partners suggests Monticello consider a new "look" for the watertower during its upcoming maintenance. I would ask that bids be let that would include two colors and the "M" graphic (white and an appropriate shade of blue). It would certainly be noticed and the new blue "M" would be consistent with the highway billboard and hanging banners. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, �� 1 0 Council Agenda - 6/10/96 The Planning Commission requests a short moratorium on construction of accessory buildings where an attached garage is present. During the moratorium, the Planning Commission will be researching the need to control the size and location of accessory buildings. There is a concern that the current code may be too liberal in allowing a 1,000 sq R accessory building on R-2 lots that could be as small as 6,000 sq fi^ The moratorium would prohibit construction of new accessory buildings during this short research period. Motion to approve attached moratorium based on the finding that time is needed to allow the Planning Commission to develop understandable regulations governing accessory buildings. Motion to deny the moratorium. City Council should select this alternative if it views the existing code as acceptable or if it does not want to block building permits for accessory buildings that may be inconsistent with possible upcoming code changes being worked on by the Planning Commission. ('._ STAFF F..O F.NDATION: I recommend alternative q1. D_ SI PPORTINO DATA: Moratorium document; Recent Planning Commission discussion item. 26 JFAC LN-05-1996 1126 PpC 612 595 9B3? P.02/04 Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. COMMUNITY PLANNING • OEe1GM • MARKET RESEARCH MEMORANDUM TO: Jeff O'Neill FROM: Stephen Grittman DATE: May 30, 1998 RE: Montlo*W - Accessory 8uldinp Moratorium FILE NO: 191.06-96. Fol m*v Is a draft resolution and Intertm ordinance which would ish a moratorium on the acceptance, procenhe and approval of applications for esoond accessory buMW or ges 1 took this from a coupb of other moratorium . .,, .: , In our files. I have seW, it up for ReslderWal Dbtfl to only (I assume tits Is the main issue), and W a blank for an expinhdlon date. The date could be ae late as /8 months after the date of adoption. Let me know if you need enylhtnp else on this lssue for now. 5775 Wayzata Blvd • Suite 555 • St. Louis Park. NW 55418 • (812) 595.9838•Fax. 5959837 /004 JU-05-19% 11:26 We 612 5959837 P.03/84 RESOLUTION NO. MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL WHEREAS, the City of Montioelb has received a large number of apuiriee and applications for accessory bL*bVs tD be cormhxled h various naAlk rdtal mrdrig districts; and WHEREAS, the City has determined that the Ordinance ragAeft such aooessory bWdbW and garages may be hdwpretad in ca dllcthhg ways; and WHEREAS. such amfbc6rg irrterpretaUons has led to dffc tqf in giving conslstent and aoaaate dhedton to property owners; and WHEREAS, d will be .womwy to study the issue of accessary bWMkq s and garages to a compretrenthre manner to determine the most , ... , ,,, method Of repletion and soman' of often cormots; and WHER , now accessory hooding requaste cannot be addressed with the required oonsistercy until Rich reoWations and official controls are adopted NOW. THEREFOW BE IT RESOLVED by the Monticello Cir Camm that City staff and tha Pfennig Commission are dheced tc undertake an enatysis of the lsews of second accessory brdldtrhps wWw garages in ox ft. plotion of the peImratiom of rerrhions to the City's oftical controls govembv such struebnes. ADOPTED fhb day of 1996, by the City Cahahcil of the City Of Mmweb. Mh usota. CITY OF MONTICELLO Brad Fyls, Mayor ATTEST: Rick V*ftbWW, Cry Administrator JUN-05-1996 11.26 NRC 612 595 9837 P.04iO4 Cky of MaodmlkN Mlanema Ordimmusce AN INTERIM ORDINANCE TEMPORARILY PROHIBIMG THE APPROVAL OF CERTAIN ACCESSORY BUILDING PERMITS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS. The City Council of the City of Mondoello hereby ordains: Sadon 1. lacuna This Ordinance is intended to allow the City of Momkzl o time to study and adopt appcapciate land use caan I zm,b aiag the coma uxim of a second aooessmy building an ba where am gmp or accessory bw1ding already exists prior to Whcatim for the second such building. Seedoo a. E =dm This Otdioanoe shall not apply to propatks whkh have filed a valid application for a building permit prior to the adoptitm of tits Ordinance by the City Council. ON shall it apply to psopeo in Zoning Districts other than R-1, W2, or R-3 DWrim s. .SeRIm 3, '�,I�er�rY� �+h�$inn rwYfi� tii0 a official annola. no building permit applitatioo for a second accessory building or seoond garage on a reaidtncWly coned or residentially used property shall be accepted, processed, or approved. Serttlm 4. Itis Ordinance shall rata effect am be In full force film and after its paswge and publication It fill reauin in effect until Me adoption of the official controls oometrtplated berein or , whichever hu omms. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the MoMlodlo City Council this dry of .1996. CITY OF MONIICE I Brad Fyts, Mttyar ATTEST: Rick WOMMlla, Admin4aaoor AYES: NAYS: /0 V TOTAL P.04 Planning commission Agenda- 6/9/ plft M Planning Commission is asked to review a current planning case involving a request to build a two -car detached garage in the rear yard of a zero lot line duplex lot. In addition, the Planning Commission is asked to review the current regulations governing accessory structures and determine whether or not to continue to allow relatively large accessory structures (up to 1,000 sq ft) to be constructed in rear yard areas when an attached garage exists. The application for a building permit that generated this agenda item was a request for a detached two -car garage at 220 Marvin Elwood Road. As you know, the Marvin Elwood Road area is an R-2 district. The duplex is on a .:ero lot line and is situated on a lot that is less than 12,000 aq ft. We are cor :emec: that the ordinance did not intend to allow a 1,000 sq ft accessary stricture to be allowed on Tote as small as 6,000 sq ft. By allowing this stricture to be erected as proposed, we would be continuing a precedent that ,.. ald enable other property owners with duplex -size lots to build similair structures. The closer we looked at the ordinance, the more we realized that perhaps accessory structures are not intended to be allowed in either the R-1 or R•2 district when an attached garage is present As you know from previous agenda items, each residence is allowed one accessory structure. If you review the language in the ordinance closely, you will note that it could be construed that an attached garage could be construed as being an accessory use/structure, which would, therefore, mean that the allocation for a single accessory structure is used up by the presence of an attached garage. For some time, City staff has interpreted the code quite differently in this regard. We have allowed on a number of occasions construction of detached accessory structures even though an attached garage is present. I took a quick windshield survey of the community and found 16 examples of ei"k family residences that had both an attached garage and an accessory structure in the rear yard that was large enough to hold at least one car. Of the 15 counted, there were probably 9 or 4 that were large enough to hold 2 care; therefore, it appears that in the past our interpretation of the code has set a precedent that could apply in this case. Planning Commission is asked to discuss this issue and to determine how to interpret the code as it applies to the R-1 and R-2 districts. >o D Planning Commission Agenda -6/4/96 For your information, Steve Grittman has outlined various alternatives for regulating accessory structures. No specific recommendation is being made by City staff at this time. This is an open item for discussion and continued research. With regard to the Hook request, in order to force a review of this item at Planning Commission and Council level, City staff formally denied the building permit application based on an interpretation that the existing attached garage represents the single accessory structure allowed per property. We recognize that this interpretation is inconsistent with previous interpretations of the code as it relates to accessory structures; however, due to the fact that this particular structure was in an R-2 district and because it may be that staff has been interpreting the regulations incorrectly over the years, I felt that it would be wiser to deny the permit and then allow Planning Commission and City Council to review staff action to deny and, if Planning Commission and City Council desires, can act to override staff denial and award the building permit. Unfortunately for the applicant, the formal appeal of staff denial was not been submitted in time to make the public hearing notice requirement for the June meeting of the Planning Commission. Therefore, the formal appeal must occur either at the regular meeting in July or a special meeting prior to City Council scheduled for June 24. Therefore, any discussion relating to the specifics of the Hook matter is for discussion purposes only. No formal action can be taken on this particular planning case at this time. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Motion to direct City staff to prepare ordinance amendments clarifying regulations pertaining to accessory structures. Under this alternative, the Planning Commission finds that the existing language governing accessory structures is unclear and that modifications need to be made to help direct City staff and the public in this regard. Perhaps there is specific language or regulations that the Planning Commission would like to not only clarify but add to the present ordinance that more clearly reflects what the Planning Commission would like to see happen with regard to accessory structures, etc. Motion to deny authorization for staff to prepare ordinance amendments clarifying accessory structure regulations. /06— Planning commission . Agenda - 0!4/96 Under this alternative, Planning Commission simply reviews the code and informs City staff as to how to interpret the code for specific situations. Perhaps Planning Commission is comfortable with how the language is laid out in the code and simply needs to tell staff how to interpret it. Under this alternative, City staff would be reporting to City Council as to the preferred interpretation of the code. C: _ STAFF I; RCOMMENDATION; We have had five or six people review the code as it pertains to accessory structures. Each seems to have a different interpretation. Some believe that the code allows development of a detached accessory structure in addition to a garage; others indicate that its implied that an attached garage is an accessory structure, therefore Dowing a second garage in the rear yard violates the requirement that only one accessory structure is allowed. The bottom line is, what's in the beat interest of the R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods? And what does the Planning Commission view as acceptable in terms of accessory structures in rear yards when a garage on a home already exists? Once you've determined what you believe is proper, then it would be our recommendation that the ordinance be rewritten to better reflect your wishes. Excerpts from the zoning code; Hook site plan; Steve Crittman's report. /D measurements of such area or width are within seventy-five (75) percent of the requirements of this ordinance. Except in the case of planned unit development as provided for in Chapter 20 of this ordinance, not more than one (1) principal building shall be located on a lot. The words "principal building" shall be given their common, ordinary meaning; in case of doubt or on any question or interpretation, the decision of the Building Inspector shall be final, subject to the right of appeal to the Planning Commission and City Council. 5. On a through lot (a lot fronting on two (2) parallel streets), both street lines shall be front lot lines of applying the yard and parking regulations of this ordinance. [D) ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, USES, AND EQUIPMENT: 1. An accessory building shall be considered an /J integral part of the principal building if it is mat ; connected to the principal building either directly PO f I. `�'D or by an enclosed passageway. 5c}� /,. 2. No accessory building shall be erected or located within any required yard other than the rear yard. 3. Accessory buildings and garages shall not exceed fifteen (15) feet in height and shall be ten (10) feet or more from all aide lot lines of adjoining lots, five (5) feet or more from the rear lot line, shall be ten (10) feet or more from any other building or structure on the same lot, and shall not be located within a utility easement. 4. No accessory building or garage shall occupy more than twenty-five (25) percent of a rear yard, nor exceed one thousand (1,000) square feet of floor area. 5. o It shal be sa e e sspdon ffi more Fr.va a ac tructure n�or Each .applican or a DUi1C1rtt] permit to construct any dwellings shall be required to provide off-street parking space for at least one (1) automobile per family to be housed in addition to any garage space to be used. (7/22/91, 1211) MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3/5 ID G [FH) FLOOD PLAIN: The areas adjoining a watercourse which have been or hereafter may be covered by the regional flood. [FI) FLOOD PROFILE: A graph or a longitudinal plot of water surface elevations of a flood event along a reach of a stream or river. [FJ) FLOODNAY: The channel of the watercourse and those portions of the adjoining flood plains which are reasonably required to carry and discharge the regional flood. [FR) FLOOR AREA: The sum of the gross horizontal areas of the several floors of the building or portion thereof devoted to a particular use, including accessory storage areas located within selling or working space such as counters, racks, or closets, and any basement floor area devoted to retailing activities, to the production of processing goods, or to business or professional offices. However, the floor area shall not include: basement floor area other than area devoted to retailing activities, the production or processing of goods, or to business or professional offices. The floor area of a residence shall be allowed to include thirty (30) percent of the area of attached garages, not to exceed 96 square feet, and fifty (50) percent of enclosed breezeways or porches, not to exceed 96 square feet (48 sq. ft. credit), but shall not include basement area, unless the basement shall be determined to be a story as defined herein. [FL) FLOOR AREA - LIVABLE: The total of all floor areas of a building, excluding equipment rooms, interior vehicular parking or loading, and all floors below the first or ground floor, except when used or intended to be used for human habitation or service to the public. (5/23/94, #251) [GAJ GARAGE - PRIVATE: An accessory building or acce p(�ortion.or the Qrincip2l build"which is inten a or Enu aueo to score the private passenger vehicles of the family or families resident upon the premises and in which no business service or industry is conducted, provided that not more than one-half (1/2) of the space may be rented for the private vehicles of persons not resident on the premises, except that all the space in a garage of one (1) or two (2) car capacity may be so rented. [GBJ GARAGE - PUBLIC: A building or portion of a building, except any herein defined as a private garage or as repair garage, used for the storage of motor vehicles or where any such vehicles are kept for remuneration of MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 2/13 104 CHAPTER 2 RULES AND DEFINITIONS SECTION: 2-1: Rules 2-2: Definitions 2-1: RULES: The language set forth in the text of this ordinance shall be interpreted in accordance with the following rules of construction: (A) The singular number includes the plural and the plural the singular. (8) The present tense includes the past and the future tenses, and the future the present. (C) The work "shall" is mandatory while the word "may" is permissive. (D) The masculine gender includes the feminine and neuter. 2-2: DEFINITIONS: The following words and terms, wherever they occur in this ordinance, shall be interpreted as herein defined: [AA) ACCESSORY BUILDING OR USE: A subordinate building or use which is located on the same lot on which the main building or use is situated and which is reasonably necessary and incidental to the conduct of the primary use of such building or main use. (AB) ADDRESS SIGN: A sign communicating street address only, whether written or in numerical form. [AC] ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT: A temporary permit granted by the Zoning Administrator, after City staff approval, without• a public hearing, granted to a Specific individual at a specific location, to address those roqueeto and proposals for specific uses that are not allowed under the strict provisions of this ordinance, but that present no apparent conflict with the intent of this ordinance. An administrative permit may be renewed indefinitely but cannot, under any circumstance, be transferred to another person or location. An administrative permit may be revoked upon ten (10) days' written notice whon and if the use evolves into a use determined to be in violation of this ordinanco. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 2/1 10= rn �� y. ° 9 min• sulk a-�- �` goo v v �Y lu 0© 17) �r A� SUBJECT TO ELD INGPECTION mb"a 11 Er% App Ov Dennis Hook 220 Marvin Elwood Rd. Monticello. MN 5S362 (612 ) 295-5866 City of Monticello Jeff O'Neil 250 East Broadway PO Box 1147 Monticello, MN 55362 Re: Lot 13, Block 1, The Meadows Subdivision Ocar Mr. O'Neil: I am writing in response to your letter I received May 25, 19146. I would like to appeal your decision concerning the Menial of a building permit for an accessory building on Lot 13, Block 1. I would like this matter to be brought up at the City Council meaning on June 10, 1990 so please do put this on the agenda. Thank you for taking the time to review my request. Sincerely Yours%��"- " Dennis Hook OH/bh i®K MAY -23-1996 16:10 NAC 612 595 9837 P. W/03 NrNorthwest Associated Consultants, Inc. C COMMUNITY PLANNING • DESIGN • MARKET RESEARCH MEMORANDUM T0: Jeff O'Neill FROM: Stephen Grittman DATE: May 23, 1996 RE: Monticello - Accessory Struc urea In R-2 Districts FILE NO: 191.06 This memorandum summarizes the issues associated with a request to construct a detached accessory structure on a zero lot Iine twinhome bt According to the Zoning Ordinance, private garages are permitted accessory uses in the R,2 Dlstrkt whore twQdtomes are Permitted principal uses. Accessory buildings are allowed subject to certain restrictions. These indude a Iinnitetion on tis total area of the garage or aocessory building (1,000 square feet), and a restriction that no any buk" will oaupy mora that 25% of the rear yard. The concern which the application raiaw is whether a double garape (the size of building which would Woly be allowed under the Current regulations) b an i use Of ism If many twinhome owners decided to take advantage of the Ordinance. Rear yards may app�r cluttered and overbuilt If several 40 foot wide twintwrne lob we developed with *large' accessory structures. If the City 11nds that Iltb shagon would not likely be a problem, no action would be neossmy. On the Other hand, f tate City wishes to deter Oft intensity of use, we have suggested a few alternative In the following paragraphs. (1) Instituto a maximum lot coverage requirement For a mintmuIm twlnhome lot (40 feet by 150 fest), a 1,200 square foot unit and a typical double garage would comprise about 28 pai ca tot cowrage. V fith a 30 pwaen maximum, a tool shed stied building would be the only extra lat coverage plassibb. With a 35 percent 10L 5775 Wayzata Blvd • Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416.(612) 595.9636•Fax. 595.91337 MAY -23-1996 16:10 NRC 612 555 9637 P.03iO3 maximum, a double game would be possible. In the Case being considered by the City currently, only a single car garage exists. The 30 percent maximum would permit an additional single car garage. (2) A possible negative of Option 1 is that additions to the principal building could be discouraged it the twinhome is already over 1,300 square feet A second option would be to limit garage and accessory structure square footage to a percentage of the principal structure. For instance, a twinhome of 1,200 square feet could have a minimum double garage with an accessory building threshold of 35%. A twinhome would have to contain at least 1,600 square feet to qualify for the equivalent of a three ear garage at the 35% ratio. One issue which would need to be addressed under this option is whether the Citys standards appy to foundation size of the building or of total finished square footage. (3) A third option is to utilize the same approach being used currently, but reduce the size threshcilcls. On a'typical' twinhome lot, the rear yard might be expected to be from 2,000 to 2,500 square feet In area. The current regulation of 25% would allow an accessory building of 500 to 625 square feet in this rear yard, a two and one half to three car garage sized building. Reducing the rear yard lot coverage could reduce the impact of accessory structures in Wnhome areas. A maximum of 10% rear yard coverage would limit the twinhome lot to an accessory building the sae of a single car gage. (4) The City could choose to elimtrhate detached accessory structures in twV*wne areas. Many contemporary twinhome developments may already do so with private covenants. A Zoning Ordinance emendmant could be prepared which accomplishes this option. If the City believes that some amount of accessory building should be allowed to twohhomes, we would recommend a combination of Option 2 and Option 3. This relates the size of the accessory building to both ft principal building and the lot, which would help to keep the buiidUhg in scale with its neighborhood. By applying the combined test of no more than 35% of the foundatlon size of the principal building or 10% of the rear yard. whichever is less. a twvhhhzne owner would have the oppof tuhity to construct a limited amount of accessory building, bid should not be ebb to overwhelm the property. Wfth regard to the current appIcadon we would have a oonoem where one building is able to be corsaucted to an area, after which the Cly dtenges the mons to more severely restrict future oonatrudW. Application of the new roqutatlons to the current proposal would be preferable, but should be reviewed by the City Attorney. Let me know if you would like to discim this further. 10M COUNCIL UPDATE June 7,1996 UPDATE ON C1TMNS' COMMENTS FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS: On April 22,1996, Tom Overman came before the City Council requesting that the City do some repairs to the railroad crossing at the entrance to Par West on Jerry Liefert Drive. Since Burlington Northern does the repairs to the crossings, we contacted the roadnoaster the following morning, and a few days later, a crew was dispatched by Burlington Northern. They replaced the planks on the outside of the rails, which greatly improved the situation. The planking between the rails is a little bit low but is serviceable. No farther improvements are expected to be made by Burlington Northern at this crossing unless the City requests a rubber type of crossing be installed, and that would be at the City's expense and would take at least a couple of years to install. Moving of the Hoglund home Onm Oakvlew Drive to Hasty, (J.8.) At the June 28, 1996, meeting, Mr. Brion requested approval for the proposed route to be used for moving the Hoglund residence to Hasty. The Council approved using the city streets and the following proposed route: Oakwood Driv to fh lto County Road 118 to County Road 76 to WnahirigWn Street to 7th Strop to minnosotA Street. to fith Street to County Road 39 West. The moving of the house was delayed twice and was actually made the morning of Wednesday, Juno 12,1998. Based on the information provided from Mr. Brion, we expected the house to be moved between 2 a.m. and 6 a.m. The house actually left the city limits about 7 a.m. The only inconveniences to Monticello residents during the move were a few short power outages. It is my understanding that NSP did not notify individual property owners of the necessity to cut power in some areae for a short time. UPDAT61O CCA COUNCIL. UPDATE June 8, 1896 In 1890, the City adopted a portion of the Minnesota City General Records Retention Schedule and began to destroy records as authorized by the State and the Historical Society. The schedule was recently updated by the State, and the Council adopted the new schedule in November 1995. In an effort to follow the recommended retention schedule and to maintain storage space at city hall, 161 cubic feet of records have been destroyed since 1890; however, we are quickly running out of storage space both on the main floor and in the basement. The City will soon need to decide how to handle the overflow of records, which may include methods such as microfilming or off-site storage. I hope to soon begin researching the costs asaociated with these options, which may need to be included in the budget as soon as 1997. If you have any questions or would like to see the present storage areas, please let me know.