City Council Minutes 06-22-1981MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
June 22, 1981 - 7:30 P.M.
Members Present: Arve Grimsmo, Ken Maus, Dan Blonigen, Fran Fair,
Phil White
Members Absent: None
1. Public Hearing on Set Back Variance - Lot 29, Block 2, Ritze Manor -
Angie and John Praught.
Mr. and Mrs. John Praught requested a variance to build a garage five
feet over the property line into the County Highway 75 right-of-way.
At a previous meeting, the City Council granted a variance to Mr.
Praught to build his second garage on his property within five feet
of the property line. However, during the construction of the building,
he was mistaken in the property corners of his property and inadver-
tently, built his new building five feet over the property line into
the right-of-way of County Highway 75.
Since discovering that his building was five feet across his property
line in the right-of-way of County Highway 75 rather than five feet in
his property line, Mr. Praught has contacted Mr. Larry Koening of the
Wright County Engineer's office who indicated that if the city were
willing to go along with a variance allowing him to build to the property
line, that the county would allow the five foot over build onto the
right-of-way provided that it would be the owners responsibility for
removal of the building or damages which might occur if construction
along the right-of-way were necessary in the future.
As a result of the county's willingness to allow the building to be
situated on the right-of-way, the Planning Commission at its previous
meeting approved the variance request contingent upon the Praughts
signing the agreements that would hold both the City of Monticello
and Wright County harmless if it were necessary to have such building
moved to do work in the right-of-way.
As provided by city ordinances, Charles and Mary Ritze filed an appeal
from the Planning Commission's approval of this variance to the City
Council. In addition to Charles and Mary Ritze, Mert and Sandy Capes
who live in the area, also opposed the variance request at the Planning
Commission level.
Mr. Max Lavelle, abutting property.owner to the west of John Praught,
spoke in favor of the variance request being granted, as they were
also under the impression that the lot corners were in a different
location than what they turned out to be.
- 1 -
Council Minutes - 6/22/81
Mr. Praught informed the Council that the survey stakesexisting on
the property were assumed to be correct and it was only recently
that it was brought to his attention that these survey stakes were
incorrect. Since that time, Mr. Praught has obtained two different
surveys of his property to find the correct location of the property
corners with two surveyors showing different corner points. There
was apparently an error in the original survey of the property at the
time it was platted in 1975. It was noted by the Praughts that if
the building had to be moved ten feet to comply with the five foot
set back variance granted previously, the building would be closer
to the abutting property owner, Vince Mayer, than it is now situated.
As a result of the apparent error in the original staking of Mr.
Praught's lot, motion was made by Phil White, seconded by Fran Fair
to grant the variance request allowing the Praughts garage to be
located up to the property line and to extend five feet into the
county right-of-way contingent upon the Praughts providing the City
of Monticello with an agreement holding both the City of Monticello
and Wright County harmless and indicating that it would be the owners
responsibility to move the structure if it were necessary to have
such building moved to do work in the right -of -way, subject to the
city attorney's approval of all documents. Voting in favor was White,
Fair, Grimsmo and Maus. Opposed: Blonigen.
2. Public Hearing on the Consideration of a Resolution Increasing Indus-
trial Development Revenue Bonds for the Monticello Scotwood Partnership.
The partnership proposing to build a Scotwood Motel just east of
Perkins requested approval of the city to increase the industrial
revenue bonds previously adopted from $750,000.00 to $1,250,000.00.
The reason for the increase in the proposed dollar amount of the
revenue bonds is the extension of the proposed motel from 36 to 48
units and an increase in the construction costs since the approval
of the resolution originally in 1980.
A representative from Miller & Schroeder, the fiscal consultant for
the partnership, indicated to the council that all the necessary
documents relating to meeting the City of Monticello's guidelines for
issuing industrial revenue bonds will be provided in the near future.
Hearing no opposition to the proposal, motion was made by Maus, seconded
by White to adopt a resolution amending the previous resolution increasing
the industrial revenue bonds for the Monticelllo Scotwood Partnership from
$750,000.00 to $1,250,000.00 contingent upon submission of all documents
required under Monticello's guidelines for issuing revenue bonds.
Voting in favor was Maus, White, Grimsmo and Fair. Opposed: Blonigen.
(See Resolution 1981-22)
- 2 -
Council Minutes - 6/22/81
3. Consid-aration of an Award of a Contract on the 1981-1 and 1981-2
Improvement Project.
Bids were received on Friday, June 19, 1981, from sixteen contractors
for the construction of sewer, water, street paving and storm -sewer
improvements to parts of the Meadows Subdivision and West River Street
to be known as the 1981-1 Improvement Project along with storm -sewer
improvements along Cedar Street between the railroad tracks and 7th
Street to be known as the 1981-2 Improvement Project.
The bids received varied from a low of $358,401.60 to a high of
$427,890.00. After reviewing the bids, it was the recommendation of
John Badalich, city engineer, that the contract for the 1981-1 and
1981-2 Improvement Project be awarded to the low bidder, LaTour
Construction Company.
Motion was made by Fair, seconded by White and unanimously carried to
award the contract on the 1981-1 and 1981-2 Improvement Project to
LaTour Construction in the total amount of $358,401.60.
4. Consideration of Amendments to State Building Code.
During the 1981 legislative session, a bill was passed allowing cities
to adopt stricter fire prevention standards than those contained in
the State Building Code. As a result, the building inspector has
requested that the council consider amending the State Building Code
to provide for doors located between the garage and a dwelling to be
self closing.
It was noted by Loren Klein, building inspector, that previously, the
building code required that a door way between an attached garage and
a home have a self closing device installed on the door, but this
requirement has since been deleted from the State Building Code. It
was Mr. Klein's recommendation that the city amend the code again to
require these doors to be self closing.
Motion was made by Maus, seconded by Fair to amend the State Building
Code to require doors between the garage and the dwelling to be self
closing. Voting in favor was: Maus, Fair, Grimsmo, White. Opposed:
Blonigen.
Previously, members of the fire department had requested that the City
of Monticello amend its ordinance to allow three story buildings only
as a conditional use contingent upon proof that adequate sprinkler
systems were installed in these types of buildings. This recommendation
of the fire department was based on the fact that should a number of
three or more story buildings be erected in Monticello, the fire depart-
ment would not have proper equipment to fight fires in higher stories
without purchasing additional equipment such as hook and ladder trucks.
- 3 -
Council Minutes - 6/22/81
It was recommended that if buildings three stories or higher were
allowed only as a conditional use and one of the conditions being
that the building would be sprinklered, the city would have control
in establishing that any high rise buildings would be adequately
protected internally for fire protection.
Motion was made by Maus, seconded by Blonigen and unanimously carried
to amend the zoning Ordinance Section 10-3-4A allowing buildings
three stories or higher only as a conditional use contingent upon
strict application of fire extinguishing systems throughout the
building. (See Ordinance Amendment 6/22/81 #102 and #103)
5. Consideration of an Extension of the Variance Request for Hard Sur-
facing Requirements for a Parking Lot - Mel Wolters. (Dairy Queen)
Mr. Mel Wolters requested an additional extension of a variance
previously granted two times by the city, once on June 25, 1979
and renewed on August 25, 1980 for a period of one year to allow
his Dairy Queen business to utilize the abutting property as a
parking lot without having the property hard surfaced or curbed.
The reason for his initial request was that he had planned to build
an office building on this abutting property and that he would have
to tear up the black topping to construct a new building which would
be a waste of material and money. Although the foundation for the
proposed office building has been constructed on the property,
additional construction has been postponed because of financing
difficulties.
It was noted that at this time Mr. Wolters is not encouraging
utilizing the gravel parking lot as an over flow lot for his Dairy
Queen business, but it was a recommendation of the city staff that
this variance be continued allowing the property to be used as an
over flow parking site as this would eliminate the Dairy Queen
customers from the parking on the City streets causing possible
traffic congestion.
A motion was made by White, seconded by Maus and unanimously carried
to extend the variance on hard surface requirements for the parking
lot adjacent to the Dairy Queen until August 1, 1982.
6. Consideration of a 3.2 Beer License for the Lion's Club - July 4th
Celebration.
The Monticello Lion's Club has again requested a temporary license
to sell 3.2 beer as part of their Independence Day celebration taking
place in the Bridge Park.
- 4 -
Council Minutes - 6/22/81
A Lion's Club representative has indicated that they would be
providing the city with a certificate of insurance for general
liability and liquor liability if the license was approved.
Motion was made by Blonigen, seconded by Fair and unanimously carried
to approve the temporary 3.2 on -sale license for the July 4th, 1981
celebration to the Lion's Club contingent upon proof of general and
liquor liability insurance.
7. Consideration of Setting Rates for 1981 for Tree Removal and Tree
Replacements.
As part of the city's Dutch elm disease control program, a property
owner was charged $90.00 for removal of a diseased elm tree in 1980.
This $90.00 charge was based on State funding for 50 percent of the
total cost of removal in the amount of $180.00 per tree with the city
and the resident equally splitting the balance at $90.00 each.
The State of Minnesota for 1981 is planning to reduce its reimburse-
ment cost to cities in the control of Dutch elm disease from 50 per-
cent down to 20 percent of the actual cost of removing the trees.
The average cost of removing a tree has been estimated to be approxi-
mately $440.00 which includes the removal of the tree stump in the
amount of $40.00. With the State reducing their assistance, it was
recommended that the stump removal be the responsibility of the
property owner unless the stump would be in the boulevard which would
then be the city's responsibility. The proposed cost of $400.00 for
a tree removal in 1981 would be split as follows if the State funding
was only 20 percent:
State Funding $ 80.00
City's Share 200.00
Property Owners Charge 120.00
It was also recommended that the city pay up to $20.00 for a replace-
ment tree rather than $30.00 as in 1980. In 1980, the State and the
city shared any replacement tree costs for one removed from the boule-
vard and split the cost for the replacement trees for a tree removed
from private property with the property owner. This method was pre-
viously established since the State of Minnesota did grant assistance
to trees removed on a boulevard but not on private property. The new
proposed method would be as follows if the property owner selected a
replacement tree at a $60.00 cost which was approximately the city's
cost for a tree planted in 1980.
- 5 -
Council Minutes - 6/22/81
Replacement Tree
Boulevard
Proposed Method
Current Method
State $12.00
$30.00
City 20.00
30.00
Resident 28.00
- 0 -
$60.00
$60.00
Private Property
Proposed Method
$ - 0 -
20.00
A() nn
.1we
Current Method
$ - 0 -
30.00
30.00
$ 60.00
It was noted that in many cases the property owner could reduce the
replacement tree cost by planting his own tree. In any case, the
City of Monticello would pay up to $20.00 towards the cost of a replace-
ment tree and if the tree was on the boulevard, the State would reimburse
the city an additional 20 percent of the cost of the tree.
A motion was made by Fair, seconded by White to adopt a fee schedule
increasing the removal costs to a property owner for the removal of a
Dutch elm diseased tree to $120.00 with the stump removal to be the
responsibility of the property owner unless.it is on the boulevard.
In addition, the rate for private tree replacement and boulevard tree
replacement would be subsidized by the city up to $20.00 per tree.
Voting in favor was Fair, White, Grimsmo and Maus. Opposed: Blonigen.
8. Consideration of a Resolution Approving the Election of Gary Wieber
to be Excluded from the Public Employee's Retirement Association
and a Resolution Authorizing an Agreement with the City Administrator
Relating to Deferred Compensation.
On May 22, 1981, the governor signed a bill which allowed city managers
and administrators that were appointed as chief administrative officer
of a city, to be excluded from the Public Employment Retirement Associa-
tion and allow the employer to contribute the same amount on behalf of
the individual, to a deferred compensation program which meets the re-
quirements of Section 457 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 as amended
through December 31, 1980.
In light of the recently inacted legislation, Gary Wieber, City Adminis-
trator, requested that the council approve his with drawal from PERA
and a resolution authorizing a deferred compensation plan in lieu of
PERA.
Currently, the City of Monticello contributes 52 percent of the employee's
salary along with an employee's 4 percent gross salary to a Retirement
Fund and it was noted that these contribution rates would not change
under the new law.
Motion was made by White, seonded by Fair and unanimously carried to
adopt a resolution authorizing the agreement with the City Administrator
relating to deferred compensation and to adopt a resolution approving
the election of Gary Wieber to be excluded from the Public Employers
Retirement Association. (See Resolutions 1981-23 and 1981-24)
- 6 -
Council Minutes - 6/22/81
9. Approval of Bills and Minutes.
A motion was made by Maus, seconded by Fair and unanimously carried
to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held June 8, 1981 as
presented and the bills for the month of June 1981 as presented with
the addition of check #14495 in the amount of $24,002 to Flexible
Pipe Tool. See exhibit 6/22/81 #1.
10. Consideration of Accepting Grant Offer from State of Minnesota -
Ellison Park.
John Simola, Public Works Director, informed the council that the
State of Minnesota has offered the city a grant in the amount of
$6,632.00 for improvements to Ellison Park.
Previously, a federal grant has been approved in the amount of
75 percent of the estimated cost of improving Ellison Park with a
boat launching facility along with improved restroom facilities, etc.
The Minnesota Department of Transportation has now offered the city
a grant in the amount of $6,632.00 for improvements to Ellison Park
not to exceed 1212 percent of the estimated cost. The City of Monticello
would be required to match the State's grant amount dollar for dollar.
(See Resolution 1981-25) .
Meeting Adjouned.
Rick Wolf s ler
Assistant dministrator
- 7 -