City Council Minutes 11-28-1983MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
November 28, 1983 - 7:30 P.M.
Members Present: Arve A. Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Jack Maxwell,
Dan Blonigen, Ken Maus.
Members Absent: None.
1. Call to Order.
2 . A2proval of Minutes.
Motion was made by Fair, seconded by Maus, and unanimously carried
to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held November 14, 1983,
and the special meeting held November 14, 1983. (Maxwell just arrived
at the meeting and did not actually vote on the minutes motion.)
4. Consideration of a Request to Rezone from R-1 to R-3; Applicant -
John Sandberg
Previously, Mr. John Sandberg came before the Council to request a
simple subdivision of the west 21 2/3 feet of Lot 4 and all of Lot 5,
Block 7, Lower Monticello, into two residential building lots. The
Council tabled any action on the simple subdivision creating the two
lots and allowed Mr. Sandberg to investigate the possibility of using
this parcel for a multiple family condo dwelling along the river.
Mr. Sandberg then presented a proposal for a 20 -unit condominium for
this property, which also received opposition from the neighboring
residents and questions arose as to whether the City could actually
spot zone this property for multiple family uses.
In discussing this item with the City Planner and City Attorney,
it was felt that this property, if rezoned for multiple use, would
be spot zoning, not in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and,
thus, illegal. As a result, the Planning Commission, at a special
meeting, unanimously denied the request for rezoning and the condo
complex.
Mr. Sandberg was present at the Council meeting and noted that he
fully understood the City's position but noted that he still felt
the City should investigate the entire Comprehensive Plan for possible
amendments to allow such types of condominiums to be placed within
the City limits, especially along the river corridor. Mr. Sandberg
also noted that if the rezoning request was denied, he still wanted
to pursue the simple subdivision of his parcel into two building
- 1 -
Council Minutes - 11/28/83
lots. He noted that if his simple subdivision was approved, he
would still pursue purchasing the adjacent lot, which he had an
option on, and possibly wait until the City completes its review
of the Comprehensive Plan, as he felt that some day the City could
support a condominium project such as he had planned. Mr. Sandberg
also noted that if his simple subdivision was not approved, he
would immediately obtain a building permit for a single family
residence on his lot, which would probably be placed only 30 feet
from the front property line, still leaving enough area in the
rear of his property next to the river for a future home in the
future.
Questions were raised by the Council as to whether there still would
be enough land at the rear of the property for an additional building
lot that would not be in the flood plain or be unbuildable, and Mr.
Sandberg noted that all of the high ground on the rear lot would
still exceed 12,000 square foot minimum required by the City.
Due to the recommendations of the City Attorney and City Planner
regarding the legalities of spot rezoning, a motion was made by
Blonigen, seconded by Maus, and unanimously carried to deny the
rezoning request from R-1 to R-3.
5. Consideration of a Request for a Simple Subdivision; Applicant -
John Sandberg.
As referenced in the previous item, Mr. Sandberg again requested
that the Council approve the simple subdivision for the west 21
feet of Lot 4 and all of Lot 5, Block 7, into two buildable residential
lots.
Motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Fair, and unanimously carried
to approve the simple subdivision request for this parcel per the
certificate of survey presented.
6. Public Reading and Consideration of Adopting an Ordinance Authorizing
Gambling.
At the previous Council meeting, the City Council reviewed the proposed
ordinance amendment that would legalize certain types of gambling
activities. The item was tabled at the previous meeting to allow
the Administrator to check whether a blanket ordinance could be
adopted to allow operation of gambling devices without annual review.
It was noted by the Administrator that in consulting with the City
Attorney, it was their opinion that Minnesota Statutes do not allow
gambling without City approval and that a City may be more restrictive,
but it may not be more lenient than the State allows. In addition,
- 2 -
Council Minutes - 11/28/83
the City must license all gambling activities, and the license shall
be valid for one year only. As a result, if the City is to allow
gambling activities to occur, it must adopt an ordinance regulating
gambling activities. As a result, motion was made by Maus, seconded
by Maxwell, and unanimously carried to adopt an ordinance amendment
regulating gambling activities. See Ordinance Amendment #130.
7. Consideration of a Resolution Setting License and Permit Fees.
Motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Fair, and unanimously carried
to adopt a resolution setting the fees for the following licenses
and permits:
1. Wine on -sale
2. Wine and 3.2 beer combination
on -sale
3. Gambling, annual
4. Gambling, single occasion
5. Transient merchant
6. Transient merchant, annual
for private premise
7. Transient merchant, daily
fees operating under authority
of an annual permit
See Resolution 1983 #90.
$245.00 per year
$400.00 per year
$ 50.00 per device
$ 20.00 per device
$ 50.00 per day
$ 75.00 per year
$ 10.00 per day
8. Consideration of a Request for a Conditional Use to Allow More
Than 12 Units in a Multiple Dwelling; Applicant - Construction 5.
Mr. Joseph LaFromboise requested a Conditional Use Permit to build
a 24 -unit apartment building on the corner of Lauring Lane and
Washington Street. The current size of Mr. LaFromboise's lot is
59,941 square feet, which would allow for 12 one -bedroom units
and 12 two-bedroom units. The applicant requested a variance from
the minimum lot size requirement, as his initial proposal was to
build 18 two-bedroom units and 6 one -bedroom units, therefore,
requiring a total of 62,500 square feet of land area. As a result,
Mr. LaFromboise requested a variance from the minimum lot size of
2,559 square feet.
The Planning Commission, at their public hearing on this Conditional
Use Request, recommended denial, as they felt the developer could
design a building that would meet the land area by cutting the
project size by only one unit. The Council also discussed this
- 3 -
Council Minutes - 11/28/83
alternative and recommended that the developer consider 17 two-bedroom
units and 6 one -bedroom units, which would only require a variance
of 59 square feet from the total minimum square footage requirement.
It was noted by Councilman Maus that although this property would
require a variance to build 18 two-bedroom units and 6 one -bedroom
units, he felt the Council should consider the fact that this
property is bordered on all four sides by public streets or
railroad property and, thus, the property appears to be larger in
size than it actually is.
Motion was made by Fair, seconded by Blonigen, to deny the variance
request for 2,559 square feet from the minimum requirements for
a 24 -unit apartment building consisting of 18 two-bedroom units
and 6 one -bedroom units. Voting in favor of the denial was Grimsmo,
Maxwell, Fair, Blonigen. Voting in opposition: Maus.
Motion was then made by Fair, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously
carried to approve the Conditional Use Permit to build up to a 24 -unit
apartment building consisting of 12 two-bedroom units and 12 one -
bedroom units, or a 23 -unit apartment building consisting of 17
two-bedroom units and 6 one -bedroom units with the latter 23 -unit
building requiring a variance of only 59 square feet from the
square footage requirements.
9. Consideration of a Rededication of Hennepin Street.
On October 11, 1983, the City Council voted to vacate Hennepin Street
from the south line of the Burlington Northern right of way to the
north line of Lauring Lane. This parcel was then offered for sale
to Construction 5 at the appraised price of $24,000. On October 24,
Mr. Gus LaFromboise from Construction 5 thought the asking price
was too high and made a counter offer of $6,600 for the same parcel,
which the Council rejected. As a result, Mr. LaFromboise expressed
no interest in buying the land and as a result, it is recommended
that the Council consider rescinding its previous motion to vacate
this portion of Hennepin Street.
Motion was made by Maus, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously carried
to rescind its previous action vacating Hennepin Street and rededicate
this portion of Hennepin Street as a public right of way.
10. Consideration of the Quarterly Liquor Store Financial Statement.
The Council reviewed with Liquor Store Manager, Mark Irmiter, the
financial statement for the period ended September 30, 1983. It
was noted that total sales for the nine months totaled $646,000 with
- 4 -
Council Minutes - 11/28/83
net income to date approaching $60,000.
By consensus of the Council, the report was accepted as presented.
11. Consideration of November Bills.
Motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously
carried to approve the bills for the month of November as presented.
12. Review of MN/DOT Proposal on Park Acquisition for Highway Bridge.
Previously, the meeting was held with MN/DOT representatives and
City staff regarding mitigative measures that might occur as a
result of the new Highway 25 bridge that would require taking part
of the City's East Bridge Park.
MN/DOT requested a letter of concurrence from the City of Monticello
approving the outcome of that meeting, which would (1) provide
for fair and just compensation for all land acquired for the proposed
highway improvements; (2) provide compensation for relocating the
existing band shell in East Bridge Park; (3) requires MN/DOT to
construct a pedestrian walkway under the new bridge to link both
East and West Bridge Parks; (4) requires MN/DOT to place riprap
under the new bridge and 100 feet upstream from the bridge and
150 feet downstream from the bridge banks; (5) allows the City
to salvage ornamental lighting from the old bridge for their use
in the park.
Motion was made by Fair, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously carried
to authorize the City Administrator to respond favorably to the
recent MN/DOT letter regarding the State's proposed procedures for
acquiring East Bridge Park and their proposals.
13. Consideration of Resolution Authorizing Execution of a Tax Increment
Pledge Agreement - Metcalf and Larson Project.
Motion was made by Blonigen, seconded by Maus, and unanimously carried
to adopt a resolution authorizing the execution of a tax increment
pledge agreement which requires the Housing and Redevelopment Authority
to pledge all tax increments revenue generated for repayment of the
$32,000 General Obligation Tax Increment Note authorized by the
City of Monticello. See Resolution 1983 #91.
Rick WolfsteJAer
Assistant Administrator
- 5 -