City Council Minutes 02-25-1980MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MO NTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
February 25, 1980 - 7:30 P.M.
Members Present: Arve Grimsmo, Dan Blonigen, Fran Fair, Ken Maus, Pail White.
"Members Absent: None
1. Public Hearing on Consideration of a Resolution Approving Commercial
Development Revenue Bonds for the Monticello Scotwood Partnership.
Purpose of this item was to consider approval of the issuance of $750,000
in commercial development revenue notes as authorized under Minnesota
Statutes 474.02 (Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act) for
Monticello Scotwood Partnership, to finance the cost of land acquisition
and construction of a 36 -unit Scotwood "Motel in Monticello.
Location is just east of the Perkins Cake & Steak and west of the VFW on
a site of approximately 1.29 acres (this includes .29 acres of a proposed
vacation and subsequent deeding to the Partnership of one-half of street
adjacent to the property (see item 2). Legal description of the property,
exclusive of the proposed vacation and subsequent deeding, is
Lots 4,5,6 & 7 of Block 3, Townsite of Monticello, City of "Monticello,
Minnesota.
Proposed breakdown of the project costs is as follows:
COST ITEM AMOUNT
Land Acquisition and Site Development $ 74,000
Construction Contracts 611,000
Equipment Acquisition and Installation 71,425
Architectural & Engineering Fees 10,000
Legal Fees 7,500
Interest During Construction 84,375
Initial Bond Reserve ---
Contingencies 15,000
Bond Discount 18,750
TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $892,050
Of the above figure of $892,050, $750,000 is being requested for the issuance
of the commercial development revenue notes and the balance has to be equity
financed.
It should be pointed out that the proposed Scottlood Motel will be a franchise
of Brutger Companies, Inc., of St. Cloud, Minnesota. The actual owner of
the Motel will be Scotwood Partnership, a partnership made up of Willard J.
Murphy - St. Cloud, Minnesota; Patricia Pavak - St. Cloud, 1innesota; and
G. Marie Heil - Irvine, California. IF1r. "1urphy is a former school super-
intendent in Ely, "Minnesota, and Ms. Pavak and Ms. Heil are his daughters.
Although it is a franchise operation, Brutger Companies will not continue
ownership. They have agreed to act as guarantor for the first five years
of the loan, which has a life of 20 years. In case there would be default
on the part of the partnership in the first five years, Brutger Companies
COUNCIL MINUTES - 2/25/80
would assume the loan. Brutger Companies, Inc. has 28 motels currently
in existence, which includes six ScotWood's in the following locations:
Glenwood, MN.; Washburn, N.D.; Carlton, MN.; Litchfield, MN.; Cloquet, MN.;
and Breckenridge, MN.
At the public hearing portion of this agenda item, there was no opposition
to the request. Mr. Jerry Hertel, with the bond consulting firm of Juran &
Moody, briefly explained the project and indicated that the request for the
commercial development revenue bonds did not in any way affect the City's
ability to borrow money and other municipal projects, nor did it affect its
credit rating. In fact, Mr. Hertel indicated the City cannot legally be
obligated in any fashion relative to the issuance of these bonds. He indica-
ted primarily there are three documents which are involved in such financing,
and they are as follows:
A. Mortgage.
B. Loan Agreement.
C. Indenture of Trust.
Mr. Hertel explained that in the event of default, that the mortgage holder is
in fact the loser. At this point, Juran & Moody would take appropriate
action through foreclosure procedures. Mr. Hertel further explained that
the actual issuance of the commercial development revenue bonds was in fact
a tax exempt mortgage which are sold to lending institutions instead of the
general public, as in the case with straight industrial revenue bonds.
Gary Pringle, City Attorney for Monticello, indicated he has reviewed all the
documents, and everything is correct and legal. !-fir. Pringle did indicate
that he did make a recommendation as to the proposed resolution which would
delete the words on Page 4 of the Resolution, Item 8, as follows -
"but otherwise without liability on the part of the City". Mr. Pringle
furthermore indicated that Brutger Companies has agreed to be the guarantor
of the loan over the first five years.
A motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Phil White and unanimously carried
to adopt the resolution approving and authorizing the issuance of commercial
development revenue bonds. (Exhibit 2/25/80 #1)
2. Public Hearing on Proposed Vacation of Public Street Southeast of and
Abutting Block 3, Upper Monticello and the Proposed Vacation of 8th
Street lying Southwest of and Abutting Block 3, Upper Monticello.
Purpose of this item is to consider the vacation of the above two segments
of streets in Monticello. Mr. E.C. Bunday, who is selling lots 4,5,6 & 7,
Block 3 of Upper Monticello, for the proposed ScotWood Motel, is requesting
that these streets be vacated and deeded to him or his assigns at the
determined price of $12,000. It should be noted, however, that the ScotWood
Motel, although interested in the entire portion of the street lying east
of Block 3, understands that the other half normally, under City Policy,
is offered to the other abutting property owner which in this case would
be the VFW Club.
- 2 -
COUNCIL MINUTES - 2/25/80
In regard to 8th Street, the proposed vacated portion abuts Lots 4 & 5
of Mr. Bunday's property, and Lots 1, 2 & 3 abut Perkin's Cake & Steak.
It should be noted that the streets within the former City limits of
Monticello are owned by the City, so it is not only necessary to go through
a vacation of the streets, it is also necessary to transfer title since
the City still owns the streets after vacation.
Mr. John Sandberg, who had previously appraised the street east of Block 3
in 1976 at $12,000, was asked to reappraise the same street along
with 8th Street, which lies south of Block 3. Mr. Sandberg appraised
the entire area for $12,000. On the appraisal performed in 1976, Mr. Sandberg
had not discounted the value for the easements to be retained, and this
resulted in the same appraisal price despite an inflation factor. It should
be noted that the entire area constitutes 30,720 square feet. This would
appraise out at approximately 39� per square foot. If the portion of 8th
Street abutting Perkins were sold to them and a portion of 8th Street
abutting Mr. Bunday's property were sold to him along with dividing the
street east of Block 3, one-half to Mr. Bunday and one-half to the VFW Club,
the following would be a breakdown of the square footage:
Mr. Bunday (ScotWood Motel)
- 17,010
square
feet
VFW Club
- 10,420
square
feet
Perkins Cake & Steak
- 3,290
square
feet
At the public hearing portion of this item, City Administrator Gary Wieber
indicated that he had talked to Bob Rierson and Vince Mayer with Bridgewater
Telephone Company and that the telephone company did have cable within
some portion of the streets proposed for vacation, and in fact, Bridgewater
does have plans in the future to put additional cable in a portion of the
proposed vacated Streets at the same time it completed installation of cable
in the future on that portion of Cedar Street between the railroad tracks
and 7th Street. Mr. Wieber also noted that NSP did have utility lines within
a portion of the proposed vacated streets. As a result of these utilities
and future utilities, any vacation should be contingent upon an easement
being retained for existing utilities and also for future utilities. Any
liability for restoration of the property to its original condition would be
the responsibility of the property owners if the street was, in fact, vacated
and deeded.
Mr. Jon Petters, with Brutger Companies, reviewed the site plan for the
ScotWood Motel and indicated that his company would be agreeable to
the contingencies mentioned in the above paragraph. Mr. Petters indicated
that the only portion of the vacated street that they would actually be
using, other than for landscaping, would be a concrete pad, which he indica-
ted they would be willing to assume the liability for its restoration if it
had to be torn up. At this point the provision for the parking for the motel
was discussed, and Mr. Petters indicated that there was room for approxi-
mately 43 cars, which would meet the City of Monticello ordinances relative
to Motels. It was pointed out to Mr. Petters that the City does have restric-
tions which prohibit on -street parking during certain months, and that this
could become a problem with trucks. Mr. Petters acknowledged that this, in
fact, could become a problem, and indicated that their company would have to
make arrangements in the additional area owned by them on the north side of
the motel if this, in fact, became a burden on the area.
- 3 -
COUNCIL MINUTES - 2/25/80
Leonard Fellman, with the VFW, indicated that the VFW might possibly be
interested in the portion of that half of the vacated streets that would
abut their property, but that he would have to get official action from
the board of directors of the VFW.
There was some concern relative to the appraised value, and a motion was
made by Ken Maus, seconded by Pan Blonigen and unanimously carried to obtain
a second appraisal on the property.
A motion was made by Phil White, seconded by Fran Fair, and unanimously carried
to vacate the public street southeast of and abutting Block 3, Upper Monticello,
and the street lying southwest of and abutting Block 3, Upper Monticello. This
vacation would be subject to utility easement rights being retained for all
utilities with liability for restoration rights to be the responsibility of
the abutting property owners. (It should be pointed out that the vacation
of streets does not, in fact, convey title to the property; however, the
contingencies are listed as a matter of record. At a later date, the City
Council would have to take action upon the actual conveyance of those seg-
ments of streets vacated, and the contingencies would be written into
legal documents).
3. Public Hearing on the Consideration of a Variance Request from Provisions
of Monticello Sign Ordinance Requirements - Scotwood Partnership.
Purpose of this item is to consider the request by the Scotwood Partner-
ship for a Scotwood Motel from Monticello Ordinances relative to sign height
and size requirements.
Following are the three variances being requested:
A. 180 square foot wall sign (Ordinance Section 10 -3 -9 -(E) -2-(b)-(2)
allows maximum of 100 square feet).
B. Pylon sign to be either 52 feet above Highway 25 at closest point, or
65 feet high from base, whichever is less (Ordinance Section
10 -3 -9 -(E) -2-(b)-(4) allows maximum height of pylon sign to be
32 feet above roadway).
C. 32 square foot directional sign (Ordinance Section 10 -3 -9 -(B) -1-(h)
allows maximum of 10 square feet).
The public hearing segment of this item -
Francis Klein opposed the variances indicating that such signs affect
the landscape, and he had noticed other signs of this same nature and
felt it had a polluting affect. Mr. Klein further mentioned that since
many of these signs are illuminated, they are energy -wasters. He
indicated that such signs are not an asset to a community.
- 4 -
COUNCIL MINUTES - 2/25/80
Mr. Jon Petters, speaking on behalf of the Scotwood Partnership, agreed to
withdraw the request for the variances mentioned in items B & C. Mr. Petters
further explained that when he had asked for a 180 square foot sign as
mentioned in item A, he included the square footage around the perimeter
of the entire word "ScotWood", however, according to Loren Klein, zoning
administrator, the actual square footage would be determined by taking the
perimeter around each individual letter, and since the letters "S" and "W"
were the only capital letters on the sign, that in fact, the square footage
would be somewhat less than 180 square feet. Mr. Petters further explained
that this is the standard type of sign that they put on their ScotWood
Motels.
Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Ken Maus and unanimously carried
to approve the variance for the wall sign as proposed by the Scotwood
Partnership.
4. Public Hearing on the Consideration of Subdivision and Variance Request
Tor Lots 1 & 2, Block 30, for John Sandberg.
Mr. John Sandberg, current owner of a duplex on Lots 1 & 2, Block 30,
Townsite of Monticello, has requested a subdivision of the property.
The property is currently zoned R-2 (single & two family residential).
The proposal is for a 68' x 132' lot to be created fronting on
Linn Street with the duplex remaining on a 97' x 132' lot.
Reason for the subdivision would be to sell the smaller lot to Les Finn
to build a single family residence.
As part of the request, variances are needed from the minimum width require-
ments of 80' since the lot is only 68' wide. In addition, the lot would
only be 8,976 square feet and require a 1,024 square foot variance from
the R-2 zone requirement of 10,000 square feet.
Also, the lot line as proposed would be 3.5' from the stairway of
the duplex, requiring a rearyard variance of 262', from the minimum
requirement of 30', for the existing house.
At the public hearing segment of this item, Mr. John Sandberg explained that
the entire parcel was 165' x 132', and the City has, in the past, grand-
fathered in 66' x 165' lots which in essence are one-half of the existing
parcel. However, because of the existing home on one segment of the parcel,
the newly created parcel was unable to meet the minimum lot size. Mr. Sand-
berg further explained that it was his understanding in talking with the
Administrative Assistant, that sewer and water was available from 3rd Street
and as a result, the street did not have to be torn up to connect sewer and
water for the newly created proposed parcel. Mr. Sandberg also submitted a
letter, dated February 23, 1980, from George Kirscht, indicating he has
no opposition to the variance request, and that, in fact, he would become
the purchaser of the balance of the property not sold to fir. Les Finn.
- 5 -
COUNCIL MINUTES - 2/25/80
Mr. Ken Maus indicated that he felt the argument that Mr. Sandberg pre-
sented was consistent with other lots that were grandfathered in by the
City which were 66' x 165', although the individual size of the parcels
created in this case would be somewhat different. A motion was made by
Phil White, seconded by Dan Blonigen and unanimously carried to grant
the variance on minimum lot width requirements, minimum lot size and
minimum rearyard setback requirements, with the provision that a driveway
be provided from 4th Street and adequate off-street parking be installed.
As a matter of record, it should be noted that it was the understanding
of the Council that no further variances would be necessary at the time of
building permit application for Mr. Les Finn or any subsequent purchaser
of this property.
5. Public Hearing on the Consideration of Subdivision and Request for
Variances from Minimum Lot Widths on Lots 2 & 3, Block D, Upper
Monticello - Rick Cole.
Mr. Rick Cole has requested to subdivide Lots 2 (except W 10') and 3,
Block D, Upper Monticello, into two equal size parcels of 61' x 165'
each. The present lots are 66' x 165' and 56' x 165'.
The present property now has a home located on it which is situated in
the middle of the lots. Mr. Cole has indicated that he plans on
removing the existing house and building a new home on one of the lots.
Because the present house is situated on both lots, the City presently
recognizes this property as one lot of record.
The new lot sizes as proposed do not meet the minimum lot width require-
ment of 80' and would require variances of 19' each. The present size
of Lot 3 is 66' and although less than 80' requirement, it would be
"grandfathered in" as a buildable lot since it meets 75% of the 80'
requirement. Lot 2 (56' wide) would presently not meet the 75% rule
and would not be a buildable lot unless variances were granted. Along
with the subdivision of property indicated above, Mr. Cole is also
requesting variances from the minimum sideyard setback in an R -B zone,
which is 20', to have the sideyard setback for each newly created lot
to be only 10' instead of the normal 20'.
At their last meeting, the Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of
this subdivision and variance request. Primary concern of the Planning
Commission was that they would like to see a specific site plan indicating
what would be put on the two lots prior to granting the subdivision and
variances. Mr. Cole had indicated at the meeting that it was his inten-
tion to build a single family home on the newly created lot. According
to the lot owned by Mr. Cole, which is 20,130 square feet, the lot would be
adequate for up to a six or seven -unit apartment house, depending upon the
number of one and two-bedroom units. Since this area is zoned as R -B,
a multiple family dwelling could be built without the necessity of rezoning,
conditional uses or variances.
- 6 -
COUNCIL MINUTES - 2/25/80
At the public hearing portion of this item, there was no one speaking
in objection or in favor of the proposed variance.
Council member White felt that the lots created would be too small
especially in light of the R -B zoning. Council member Maus indicated
that the lot width of 66' was the minimum and should be maintained.
Council member Fair pointed out that it would be hard to grant the
variance until a site plan was presented.
Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Dan Blonigen and unanimously
carried to deny the variance request.
6. Public Hearing on the Consideration of a Variance Request to Operate a
Beauty Shop in an R-1 Zone at 1209 Sandy Lane for Geraldine Vinar.
Purpose of this item is to consider a variance request application filed
by Geraldine Vinar to allow her to operate a beauty shop from one room of
her home at 1209 Sandy Lane (Lot 7, Block 1, Creekside Terrace).
According to Ms. Vinar, she would have no employees and no more than one
appointment at any time unless there might be an overlap of one person
leaving and a new appointment coming.
According to Monticello City Ordinances, a variance is required to operate
this business since the request does not fall exactly within the definition
of a home occupation. Specifically, the ordinance indicates that no mecha-
nical equipment shall be employed that is not customarily found in the home,
and no home occupation shall be permitted which results in or generates more
traffic than one car for off-street parking at any given point in time.
At their last meeting, the Planning Commission voted to recommend denial
of the variance request. Various objections were received from surround-
ing property owners including Mr. & Mrs. Gilbert Stickfort; Mr. & Mrs.
Earl Swan; Mr. & Mrs. Bill Burke and Mr. Steve Johnson. Objections
included the following:
A. Property owners in the area bought property that was zoned as R-1, or
single family;
B. Felt that this type of use would commercialize the area, specifically
in light of another request in the same general area in the next agenda
item;
C. Allowing this type of use would create additional traffic and parking
problems.
The reasons why the Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of the
request are as follows:
A. Concerns of surrounding property owners;
B. There are areas that are properly zoned for such a use;
- 7 -
COUNCIL MINUTES - 2/25/80
C. Felt this would give an unfair advantage to those beauty shops that
were operating out of a home as opposed to those that were in a busi-
ness location;
D. Concerned with the number of requests for beauty shops that have been
before the Planning Commission lately, and felt that a precedent would
be set with these types of uses and other home occupation uses.
At the public hearing segment of this item, Mr. Gilbert Stickfort indicated
his opposition to the request. Geraldine Vinar indicated she felt the request
was reasonable for the following reasons:
A. One room is not asking an awful lot for use in a home for a beauty shop;
B. The beauty shop would create additional income;
C. Because of the lack of jobs within the community, this would create
employment for her;
D. Explained that she had previously gone around and talked to adjoining
property owners, and the only opposition she had received was from
Mr. Stickfort, who explained to her a concern with traffic and a
precedent this would set;
E. Property values would not be affected;
F. A decision should not be based upon opposition from a chronic complainer.
At this point, Ms. Vinar indicated that she does favor the request of
Ms. Barb Soucy, addressed in the next item on the agenda, and rather than
pursue her particular request further, she has decided to withdraw her
particular application.
As a result of the withdrawal of the request for a variance, no action
was taken.
7. Public Hearing on the Consideration of a Variance Request for a Beauty Shop
in an R-1 Zone at 1305 West Broadway - Barb Soucy.
Based upon a verbal request by the applicant, this item was postponed
until a future meeting, tentatively scheduled for Parch 24, 1980, and
as a result, no action was taken.
8. Public Hearing on the Consideration of Conditional Use Permit and
Minimum Lot Size Requirements for Townhouses - Brad Larson on Present
Baptist Church Property and Rezoning From R-1 to R-2.
When Brad Larson came before the Council in January 1980 with his request
for rezoning the "Baptist Church Property" from R-1 to R-2 with the unani-
mous recommendation of the Planning Commission, the Council requested that
he return on February 25, 1980 with more information about the conditional
use he would be requesting to build townhouses on that property, if rezoned.
Because of that Council request, Mr. Larson has submitted a site plan which
shows the layout of the proposed development.
- 8 -
COUNCIL MINUTES - 2/25/80
Mr. Larson is proposing to obtain a conditional use permit, as required by
Monticello ordinance, to build five 4 -unit townhouses. Each building
to be 46'0" x 96'0" and contain four dwelling units plus an attached
double car garage per unit, which would exceed the ordinance requirements
for garages.
An association agreement, as required by Monticello ordinance, would be
necessary for approval, and a recommendation for approval could be contin-
gent upon that document being provided. This agreement is binding on all
owners within the project and sets the maintenance requirements, etc.
for the commonly owned property.
The cul-de-sac which comes from the property onto Highway 75, does not
align with Sandy Lane across the Highway, so traffic from the project
would be discouraged from using Sandy Lane as a thoroughfare, as was a
concern of the people who brought in a petition against the rezoning
at the last Planning Commission and Council meeting dealing with this
project.
A variance would be required for the square footage requirement since
the open area per unit is 234 square feet short of the requirement of
5,000 feet per unit, or approximately 5% short.
Mr. Larson is considering dedicating tie street in this project (yet
unnamed) to the public. If that would be done, however, a subdivision
of property would be required, but at a later date than this hearing.
Also necessary at the time of subdivision of property would be drainage,
landscaping and parking plans, which would need the recommendations
of both the City Planner and City Engineer at the time of proposal.
The proposal has previously been reviewed by the City Planner who
recommends that the conditional use permit and rezoning be granted.
At their last meeting, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval
of the conditional use permit and necessary variance from minimum lot size
for townhouses. There were several concerns from surrounding property
owners including Mr. Gilbert Stickfort, Earl Swan and Steve Johnson,
which included the following:
A. Traffic that would be generated because of additional density.
B. Mr. Stickfort was concerned that previously there was a promise made
on the past variance for a duplex which was granted to Mr. Vern Young-
berg on Lot 1, Block 2, Creekside Terrace on Sandy Lane (in reviewing
this matter, it should be noted that there was no variance granted but
a rezoning request was granted to rezone the above-mentioned parcel
from R-1 to R-2 to allow for a duplex. It should be further noted
that although the Planning Commission recommended that future
rezonings of this nature be on a scattered site basis only, the
Council rezoned the property in question without attaching any contin-
gencies to the approval.
C. Concern was for whether the sewer and water would be adequate to serve
this area.
- 9 -
COUNCIL MINUTES - 2/25/80
At the public hearing portion of this item, Mr. Steve Johnson indicated
opposition to the rezoning and conditional use permit. Mr. Johnson indica-
ted that he was disturbed about being on the defensive side and felt that
there were various issues that were not at this time being adequately
addressed. Mr. Johnson indicated that the developer is not directly
affected, since he does not live in the area, and an attempt is being
made to try to change the integrity of the neighborhood. Traffic onto
Sandy Lane is increasing all the time as a result of vehicles using this
route to avoid County Road 75, which is already heavily congested, and
Mr. Johnson felt that by adding additional traffic in this area to
County Road 75, that more people would be using Sandy Lane for an alternate
route. Mr. Johnson indicated that he felt the property values would be
affected since the townhouses are of less value than the homes on Sandy
Lane. Mr. Johnson was concerned about the burden that the additional
density would be putting on the sewer system, specifically the lift
station at Chestnut Street. Since there is other land that is properly
zoned for such a use, Mr. Johnson felt it was not appropriate at this
time to rezone this particular parcel, and that, furthermore, the developer
was more concerned about the profit from the high density as opposed to
the 11 or 12 single family homes that could be built on an area of the
same size.
Mr. Denton Erickson indicated that, while he was initially in opposition
to the project, but at this time, had not seen any specific site layout
or plans.
At this point, Mr. Brad Larson explained the site layout and presented
elevation plans for the project. Mr. Larson indicated that he understands
and appreciates the opposition, but he was not necessarily in agreement
with all the concerns expressed. The concerns,Mr. Larson explained,
have previously been addressed and dealt with at the Planning Commission
level, and felt that they were adequately resolved. According to Mr. Larson,
the association takes care of the problem of maintenance and explained that
this is a better situation than an apartment complex since there are very
severe limitations and restrictions on such items as balconies, etc.
Mr. Larson further explained that the present Baptist Church would be made
into a duplex.
At this point, Mr. Wayne Hoglund asked whether there would be a sidewalk
from this project along the south side of County Road 75 leading up to
the Pinewood School. Mr. Stickfort indicated that he felt that the par-
ticular request should not be approved until this item was satisfactorily
dealt with.
Council member Blonigen indicated that he has not changed his mind since
this item previously appeared on the Council's agenda, and that he agreed
with Mr. Johnson that there was other property properly zoned for this type
of use, and that when an individual or firm buys a parcel, that they, in
effect, buy the zoning that goes along with it. Council member Fair
indicated that she didn't see a lot of difference between the possibility
of having 11 to 12 homes in this area, as opposed to the 20 townhouses.
- 10 -
COUNCIL MINUTES - 2/25/80
Mayor Grimsmo explained that we do have available land, but much of the
land can serve a dual purpose.
A motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Phil White to approve of the
conditional use permit for townhouses along with the variance requested
from the minimum lot size and rezoning from R-1 to R-2. Voting in favor:
Fran Fair, Phil White, Arve Grimsmo, Ken Maus. Opposed: Dan Blonigen.
Motion carried. (See Ordinance Amendment 2/25/80 #75)
9. Consideration of Conditional Use Permit for an Overflow Weir - Northern
States Power Nuclear Plant.
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has required that NSP place
an overflow weir at the end of the outlet channel where the warm water
that is discharged from the power plant flows into the Mississippi River,
thus preventing fish from going into the channel.
Monticello has adopted the Mississippi Scenic and Wild Rivers Ordinance,
and thereby, any such work, although it is a requirement in this case,
must be done as a part of a conditional use.
At their last meeting, there were no objections to the request of NSP,
and the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the conditional
use permit request.
Ward King, from Northern States Power, explained that the Fish and Wildlife
Department was concerned with establishing a normal flow into the Mississippi
River. As a result, the installation of a dike (weir) would, in effect,
develop a pool and eventually, a normal flow of water would enter the Missis-
sippi River, with the pool serving as a holding pond.
A motion was made by Phil White, seconded by Fran Fair and unanimously
carried to approve of the conditional use request.
10. Review of Ordinance on Amortization of Non -Conforming and Prohibited Signs
Purpose of this item is to review the City of Monticello's ordinances
relative to prohibited and non -conforming signs to allow an opportunity
for input from those property owners, sign companies and other interested
parties.
At the January 14, 1980 meeting, two representatives of sign companies -
Mr. Del Blocher and Mr. Jim Franklin - requested that the Council consider
the possibility of grandfathering in the existing billboards which are
currently prohibited by Monticello Ordinance and required to be amortized
out over five years, and furthermore, also consider the possibility of
allowing additional billboards. At this meeting, the Council set up
February 25, 1980 for review and discussion of this item on the agenda.
According to Monticello City Ordinances, non -conforming signs must be
removed within five years after the adoption of the ordinance - which
was August 21, 1975.
COUNCIL MINUTES - 2/25/80
In addition to billboards, there are various types of non -conforming signs
and they include signs that may be too large, too high, too many signs,
flashing signs, rotating signs, signs in the improper location, etc.
Building Inspector and Zoning Administrator, Loren Klein, has taken a survey
of the entire community, and has compiled a list of non -conforming signs.
Unless there is an ordinance amendment, these signs have to be brought into
compliance with the City's ordinance by August 21, 1980.
Following were comments received from property owners:
Wayne Hoglund (Hoglund Bus Co.) - Hoglund Bus Co. has three pylon signs,
and Mr. Hoglund explained that their firm handles different product lines,
and as a result, this was a requirement. According to Wayne Hoglund and
Mr. Stuart Hoglund, they cannot put the same product identification for the
Thomas Bus Company and International Harvester on the same sign. This is
a requirement by International Harvester.
Ken Bureau (speaking on behalf of the Rosewood Shopping Center) - the
Shopping Center has two pylon signs, and Mr. Ken Bureau indicated that
these have initially received approval by the City and were legal at the
time that they were constructed. Mr. Bureau indicated that he would favor
grandfathering in the existing signs because of this factor.
Bill Seefeldt (owner of Electro Industries) - Mr. Seefeldt explained that
he owns 1,800 lineal feet along Interstate 94. Additionally, Mr. Seefeldt
indicated that he was in favor of allowing billboards, but after reviewing
the situation, had changed his mind and felt that such signs should not be
allowed. Mr. Seefeldt did feel, however, that there should be some change
in the ordinance to allow for small directional signs.
Al Joyner (Joyner Lanes & Silver Springs Golf Course) - According to Mr.
Joyner, his prime concern was with the directional sign for his golf
course, which is in the township of Monticello. However, 111r. Joyner did
indicate, in a letter he presented to the City Council, that he also had
concern for his bowling alley which was in the Oakwood Industrial Park.
According to Mr. Joyner, he had previously requested the Oakwood Industrial
Park pursue the possibility of having a type of sign that would be in effect
a directory of businesses in Oakwood Industrial Park erected on Highway 25.
Mr. Joyner explained a problem people have in finding both his bowling alley
and his golf course. Mr. Joyner indicated that some property owners are not
in a position for the expensive land that abuts right on the freeway, and
therefore, it is necessary to obtain an off -premise type of sign to ade-
quately advertise their business. Following are comments from sign companies:
Mr. Del Blocher, with Blocher Sign Company, indicated that he has various
suggestions on how the Council could appropriately amend their ordinance
and still maintain control over billboards. Mr. Blocher presented a writ-
ten summary of these recommendations to the City Council. Mr. Blocher
further suggested that the possibility of serving on a committee with members
of the Planning Commission to attempt to resolve the issue would be possible.
- 12 -
COUNCIL MINUTES - 2/25/80
A representative from White Advertising Company indicated that although he
was new to the area, he felt that billboards do serve a need.
Jim Franklin, Franklin Sign Company, indicated that while their company
does not have any present billboards in the area, he would be concerned
about an ordinance amendment which would just grandfather in existing
billboards. Mr. Franklin indicated that he would request to at least be
allowed to put up as many signs as other companies have in the Monticello
area. He felt that, while there may be more billboards in Monticello that
advertise businesses outside of the community, that there are signs in
other communities that advertise establishments in Monticello. If, in
fact, all communities across the state would take the same approach that
Monticello has in eliminating billboards, in effect "1onticello would suffer
since billboards advertising Monticello businesses would have to come down.
At this point, Denton Erickson indicated that while he is not a property
owner on which any present billboards exist, nor is he a representative
of a sign company, that he does have a billboard in Albertville which
advertises Moon Motors, and he can understand the problem encountered
by the sign companies. Mr. Erickson indicated that he had previously
served on the Council at the time the ordinance relative to signs was
adopted, and he indicated that the full extent and magnitude of this provi-
sion was probably not fully realized or appreciated at the time. Mr. Erickson
suggested that the ordinance be reviewed as it specifically pertains to
the freeway.
Council member Fair indicated that, in addition to owners of property on
which signs are situated, and also representatives of sign companies, she
would like to hear comments about what the people of Monticello feel about
the sign issue. Council member White indicated that he felt the matter
should be turned over to the Planning Commission especially in regard to
directional signs. Council member White did express a concern about the
limited amount of advertising that local businesses do on billboards within
the Monticello area. Council member Blonigen concurred that a review of
the sign ordinance was necessary, and felt that we would probably have to
start from scratch on the issue.
At this point discussion was held by the City Council on the possibility
of contacting the City Planner and having the item reviewed by him along
with the Planning Commission. Additionally, it was suggested that the
idea of having a representative from a sign company and a local business
might facilitate the procedure. Motion was made by Phil White, seconded
by Dan Blonigen and unanimously carried to direct the City Administrator
to coordinate the necessary process to have this item reviewed and brought
back to the City Council in adequate time to allow the signs to be removed
by August 21, 1980 in case the Council decided to leave the ordinance as is.
- 13 -
COUNCIL MINUTES - 2/25/80
11. Criteria for the Issuance of Industrial Revenue Bonds.
Council member Maus explained he was concerned about the number of requests
that the City may be receiving for future issues under the industrial
development revenue act. Council member Haus indicated he would like to
see some criteria for these types of issues. By Council consensus, City
Administrator was to give the Council members some background relative to
developing benchmarks for the issuance of industrial revenue bonds within
the next 30 days.
12. Review of Local Civil Defense Plan.
City Administrator Wieber explained that a meeting should probably be set
up to review Monticello's Civil Defense Plan on a local basis. Mr. Wieber
explained that this could be handled at a meeting at which Council members
could attend if they so desired, and duties of staff members, council
members, etc., would be explained by the Civil Defense Director. The
meeting was tentatively scheduled for either "larch 19 or 20, 1980, with
actual notification coming in advance of the date finally set for this
meeting.
13. Approval of Bills for February 1980 and Minutes for February 11, 1980.
A motion was made by Phil White, seconded by Ken Maus and unanimously
carried to approve the bills for February 1980 and the Minutes of the
regular meeting held February 11, 1980, as presented.
Meeting adjourned.
Gary Wieber
City Administrator
GW/ns
- 14 -