City Council Agenda Packet 04-10-1978AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
April 10, 1976 — 4:00 P.M.
PLEASE NOTE TIME
Mayor: C. 0. Johnson
Councilmen: Daniel Blonigen, Gene Walt
ers
,Philip White, Arve Grimsmo
:00 P.M. -! 2[7 yRS�Urt
1: Assessment Policy Review. _ U ✓ tK -5,2-1,44G
Recess
7:30 P.M.
Meeting to be taped.
Citizen comments.
2. Public Hearing - Vacation of Cedar Street between I-94 Freeway and
Oakwood Drive (County Road #117).
3. Consideration of Rezoning Lot 6, Block 5, River Terrace from R-1 to
Rr2.
4. Wright County Community Action Recycling Program.
5. Consideration of Change Order for City Hall.
v-"6. Consideration of Approval of Resident Engineer from O.S.M. During
Construction of 1977-3 Street Improvement Project.
V/7. Consideration of Adopting Ordinance Relative to Utilization of Boulevard.
8. Quarterly Meeting - Department Heads. rQ�Q
9. Approval of Minutes - March 23, March 27, 1978.
,eO. Unfinished business.
Open House - City Buildings
11. New business.
League of Cities - Annual Conference - June 6-9, 1978 1�
Reminder: Planning Commission Hearing on Comprehensive Plani4 L.
Tuesday, Apr111 11, 1978
Union Negotiation Meeting :ov
Thursday, April 13, 1978 - 1W A.M.
n
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
April 10, 1978 — 4:00 P.M.
PLEASE NOTE TIME
Mayor: C. 0. Johnson
Councilmen: Daniel Blonigen, Gene Walters, Philip White, Arve Grimamo
4:00 P.M.
1. Assessment Policy Review.
Recess
7:30 P.M.
Meeting to be taped.
Citizen comments.
2. Public Hearing - Vacation of Cedar Street between I-94 Freeway and
Oakwood Drive (County Road #117)-
3. Consideration of Rezoning Lot 6, Block 5, River Terraco from R-1 to
R.2.
4. Wright County Community Action Recycling Program.
5. Consideration of Change Order for City Hall.
t,' 6. Consideration of Approval of Resident Engineer from O.S.M. During
Construction of 1977-3 Street Improvement Project.
Y 7. Consideration of Adopting Ordinance Relative to Utilization of Boulevard:
8. Quarterly Meeting - Department Heade.
9. Approval of Minutes - March 23, March 27, 1978. JR
SCO. Unfinished business.
Open House - City Dildings
11. New business.
League of Cities - Annual Conference - June 6-9, 1978
Reminders Planning Commission Hearing on Ooaprehanaive Plan, ,C 2
Tuesday, Aprill 11, 1978 `
Union Negotiation Keating :ou b
Thursday, April 13, 1978 - 940 P.M.
4/10/78
AGENDA SUPPLEMENT
Item 1. Assessment Policy Review.
Springsted, the City of Monticello'a fiscal consultant, is preparing
a draft copy of our proposed assessment policy and this should either
be included with your agenda supplement information or will be sent
out shortly to allow time for review prior to Monday afternoon's
meeting at 4:00 P.M.
Purpose of assessment policy is to have a stated policy in writing
in order that the city may be consistent in assessing property from
one project to the next. It is expected that many questions will be
raised as a result of the draft copy and revisions will have to be
made at a later date, but it may be important to get some kind of
consensus on an assessment policy for future projects that are planned
in 1978 and in subsequent years. It would appear that the first
meeting in May, May 8, 1978, there will be several feasibility re-
ports and hearings held on various sewer and water projects and while
the assessment policy may not be finalized by that date, it could be
explained that the city is reviewing the policy and what the direction
may be heading for at that time. Normally, the assessments on a
project are not finalized until after the project is done but usually
it is explained to the people at the time of the hearing before the
project what the expected costs may be for the improvement.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Review of assessment policy and suggested re-
visions and deletions. It may also be well to set up a date when
the revised drdit can be reviewed.
REFERENCES: Assessment policy drafted by Springsted, Inc.
Item 2. Public Hearing - Vacation of Cedar Street between I -9L Freeway and
Oakwood Drive (County Road #117).
Mr. Samuel Peraro has requested the city vacate the above mentioned
street. Mr. Peraro owns land on the east and the west side of pro-
posed vacation. Only other abutting property owner is Stuart Hoglund.
(See enclosed map.)
Mr. Peraro has contacted Mr. Hoglund and he has agreed with the vaco-
tion of the said streets. As you may know the proposed plane at this
point for the west Bide of said street is for Vance's Standard. This
property will be leased by Mr. Peraro to Vance Florell. Reasoning for
Mr. Peraro's request is that he can better plat the Bites on both aides
of the proposed road for future access to the property and also ob-
viously obtain some additional land in that area. From the city's
standpoint the vacation is of some benefit sinco the city will not
have to maintain that portion of the street. Currently there is
one resident to the east. This property has been purchased by Mr.
Peraro. If the vacation of this street were approvod, the abutting
property owners on both aides of the property would divide the road
equally. In Mr. Peraro'B case, to a certain point, as you can sea by
the map, he owns both sides and further to the south, half of the road
would be picked up by Mr. Stuart Hoglund.
411017e
-2-
It should be pointed out that since this area was not initially
in the city, this particular road is not owned by the city and
if a street is vacated, it does automatically go to the abutting
property owners. In some past requests for vacation of streets
the city has considered the possibility of setting an asking price
for any streets that are proposed for vacation.
r
110 ' p
The city should retain all public utility easement rights in this
cod T,�'� c
area including sewer, water, storm sewer, and also electric, natural
gas, etc., and any approval should be made contingent upon that factor.
r
gfx S'
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of vacation of above mentioned street.
Item 3.
REFERENCE: Enclosed Map
Consideration of Rezoning Lot 6, Block 5. River Terrace from Firl to
R-2.
�e h
Mr. Quintin Canners recently purchased the basement home located on
Lot 6, Block 5, River Terrace, from John Lott, and requested to re --
zone the property from Rrl, single family, to R-21 single and two-
family residential.
Mr. Lamers proposes to build a second story addition on the basement
structure for the purpose of using the home as a duplex and to rent
out both floors. If such an addition were to be built, it would have
to meet all current building codes in addition to the city ordinances
relative to zoning.
Some neighboring property owners voiced opposition to the rezoning
Primary reason
at the Planning Commission's hearing on this subject.
for their opposition was the adverse affects they stated a duplex may
have on a single family neighborhood.
Enclosed, please find a petition signed by the property owners in the
area that were sent notice of the hearing. At their meeting relative
to the subject, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to approve
of said rezoning from Rrl to Rr2 to allow a duplex on the site.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval or denial or rezoning
request.
1
REFERENCES: Enclosed Map and Enclosed Petition; Copy of Affidavit
of Mailing of Hearing Notice.
Item f,.
Wright County Communitv Action Recveling Program.
Enclosed please find a letter from Margaret Miceli, program director
with Wright County Community Action relative to a recycling program
that is funded by CEPA Title VI Special Project Grant. As you can
ace by her letter, the Wright County Community Action will be setting
up collection points throughout the county for the recycling of rags,
paper, glass and metals. Ms. Miceli would like to discuss this project
with the city council at Monday night's meeting.
POSSIBLE ACTION: For discussion purposes only.
REFERENCES: Enclosed letter from Wright County Oommunity Action.
-2-
4/10/78
Item 5. consideration of Change Order for City Hall.
This item was an our agenda of the last meeting and the council
tabled any action pending further review by the Architectural
Alliance and also determination if this item could be negotiated.
I have talked with Dick Lembke and he feels that the request is
reasonable as I indicated in the last agenda supplement and enclosed
please find a letter from Dick Lembke dated March 31, 1978 indicating
the nature of the change order and stating that it in fact was part
of the contract. As previously mentioned this provision was a part
of the original contract documents and it was not totally unexpected.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approving change order with Henry
0. Mikkelson on the city hall construction project for an additional
$3340.
REFERENCES: March 31, 1978 letter from Dick Lembke, Agenda Supplement
of March 27, 1978 and additional supplemental information
that was sent out with the March 27, 1978 meeting.
Item 6. Consideration of AQproval of Resident Engineer from O.S.M. During
Construction of 1977-3 Street Imarovement Proiect.
John Badalich will review a proposal with the city council on Monday
evening relative to having Keith Nelson in the city of Monticello
during the construction of the 1977-3 Street Improvement Project.
Mr. Nelson will provide inspection services and additionally will be
the contact individual on the street improvement project in terns of
questions resolving problems with the improvement project itself.
In terms of added costs for the project, W. Badalich thought it might
add anywhere from $1400 to $2000 to the project costs since Mr. Nelson
would take the place of an inspector and the only difference would be
the fee charged by O.S.M for an engineer as opposed to an inspector.
As previously discussed O.S.M. could possibly use the old city hall
as a headquarters and this is where meetings would be conducted with
the contractor and the inspection crew from O.S.M. would be located.
Additionally, one idea that has been proposed is that a weekly Informa-
tion meeting be held at 7:00 A.M. each Monday morning to brief any
interested citizens, council or whomever, relative to the progress of
the street improvement project. Possibly to allow the citizens
better opportunity to attend this meeting consideration may be given
to setting this up at 8:00 A.M. or a little bit later time. This
would Siva any interested citizen or councilman an opportunity to
come down and have a matter resolved without waiting for the next
council meeting. All councilman would be invited to the weekly
meetings but it would not be a regular meeting of the city council
and it would be conducted by the engineering firm of O.S.M.
John Badalich will be sending out a more complete proposal relative
to having Keith Nelson down here in Monticello on a drily basis
and will review this with the council at Monday night's meeting.
i
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval of having Keith Nelson
as a resident engineer in the city of Monticello during the construction
of the 1977-3 improvement project.
-3-
4/10/78
Item 7. Consideration of Adooting Ordinance Relative to utilization of
Boulevard.
Enclosed please find a proposed ordinance regulating the use of
boulevards within the city of Monticello. Primary reason for this
ordinance is to regulate private mailboxes or tubes that have been
put up by either newspaper agencies or individuals other then for
US mail services.
It should be noted that in the allowable use section there may be
specific uses that are not mentioned such as sidewalks, sewer and
crater extensions, etc. These normally would require a permit any-
way, and as such they would obviously be allowed provided they were
in conformity with various codes.
It should be pointed out that any existing prohibited uses would be
allowed 60 days to be brought into compliance with the ordinance if
it were adopted. If council approves of the ordinance adoption
notice could be put in the paper relative to the regulation and in
that manner people would be made aware of the provisions.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of adopting enclosed ordinance.
REFERENCES: Copy of proposed ordinance:.
Item 8. Quarterly Meeting - Department Heads.
( The following department heads will be at Monday night's meeting to
discuss any questions the council may have of them or any questions
that they may have of the city council; Representative of Sheriff's
Department, Eire Chief, Civil Defense Director, Senior Citizen Director,
Liquor Store Manager, Building Inspector, Public Works Director,
City Administrator.
c
Wright County Community Action, Inc.
Vernon G. Hedner Community Action Building
Box 39 Telephone: 656-44I5
fi-
Executive Director Waverly. Mimesota 55390 Area Code 612
March 29, 1978
Gary Wicber
City Administrator
Monticello. Mn. 553(2
-///"/ 7p
Dear Sir:
In regard to your letter of March 27, 1978.
Enclosed is some background infotmnation on
the Wright County Recycling Project.
We will be happy to attend you April 10, 1978
meeting and discuss this with you.
MSI/bk
4
Sincerely .
Marrnrct M. Miceli
Wright County Community Action, Inc.
Versos G.Hedser Community Action Building 39 Telephone: 65114415
Waverly. Minnesota SS.i90
Executive Director Box Area Code 612
4/�O/7�
WRIGHT COLPIN RECYCLII r,
The objective of the 17right County Recycling program
is three fold; to create a clean invironment, save
our natural resources, and employ people on an ongoing
basis. We are going to accomplish this by settinr, un
scheduled pickup at commercial place and centrally
located receptacles for residential use.
The program is funded by a CETA Title VI special
protect grant.
U
C
CHAPTER 5
PUBLIC RICHT OF WAYS
Boulevard
8-5-1: PURPOSE: Purpose of this chapter is to protect public right
of ways in the City of Monticello from encroachments.
8-5-2: DEFINITION: For purposes of this chapter, boulevard is that
portion of the public right of way not used for
street purposes.
8-5-3: ALLOWABLE USES: Following are allowable uses of a boulevard:
(A) Trees or shrubs as regulated by Chapter 8-3-4 of this
Ordinance.
(B) Mailboxes for U.S. Postal service only (not including mail
tubes or mail boxes for private newspapers, magazines, etc.).
(C) Driveway accesses as regulated by Monticello zoning ordinances.
8-5-4: PROHIBITED USES: All uses of a boulevard not listed in Section
8-5-3 are prohibited unless a permit has been
approved by the City Cuuncil of Monticello. All existing uses
as of the effective date of this ordinance shall be brought into
conformity with city ordinances within sixty (60) days.
8_5_5: MAINTENANCE: Property owner abutting boulevard is responsible
for maintenance.
7
2 ir,5 ROADS. GENERAL PROVISIONS 16028
fust obtained Inns the road authonty The owners may place advertising on the
benches it .onh.mred by the license or permit. The benches shall not be placed or
maintained -m the piutlon of the highway or street prepared and maintained for vehi-
traffic
subd i Outdoor telephone booths. Outdoor telephone booths may be placed
and maintained %rnhm the limits of any public highway. Including city streets, when
authorized b% a -ratan permit issued by the proper road authority.
Subd 4 Customs Inspection facilities. United States customs inspection facili.
ties ma. be placed and maintained within the limits of any public highway, including
at% streets. when a untten permit is issued for such facilities by the proper road no-
thnnn
Subd i Misdemeanors. Except for the actions of the road authorities, their
agents, emplinees, contractors. and utilities to carrying out their duties imposed by
law or contract, and except as herein provided, it shall be unlawful to:
(II Obstruct ane high. ay;
121 Pin% or prrinnn any other detrimental operation within the road right of way
except in the preparation of the land for planting a perennial hay crop, and the har-
vesting of said crop,
Ill Frect a fence on the right of way of a trunk highway, county state -aid high.
u -ay or county highway_ except to erect a lane fence to the ends of a livestock puss,
(4) Dig any holes in any highway,
(5) Remove any% earth, gravel or rock from any highway;
(6) Obstruct any ditch draining any highway or drain any noisome materials Into
an_v ditch.
(7) Place or maintain any building or structure within the limits of any highway;
(8) Place or maintain any advenisemem within the limits of any highway,
(9) Paint, print, place, or affix any advertisement or any object within the limits
of any high. ay.
(10) Detail, mat. damage, or tamper with any •,truclure, work, material, equip.
ment, Innis %ign% markers, signals. paving, guardrails, drains, or any other highway
�punenantr
,it nr along any highway,
( 111 Remove. injure, displace, or destroy right of way markers. or reference or
.,tress in went, or markers placed to preserve lection or quarter section comers,
t12) hnpngnnl% place or fail to place warning signs and detour signs as provided
h. %
ills Drnv t—i through, or around any barricade. fence, or obstruction erected
Ior the purtnne of pn—crating trafh% from passing over a{onion of a highway cloned
to pubht rra%el of w remove, deface. or damage any wrh barricade, fence, or obstruc.
cam
\lolatams hereof shall bar prosecuted by the county attorney of the county where
the %relations o, t air \env person convicted of such violations shall be guilty of a mis.
demeanor
lubd a Remo%at of unsuthorlred advertisements, buildings, or straclum In or
on a public hlghwq. rhe road authorities may take down, remove, or destroy any ad•
%em%rment Luddmp or structure In or upon any highway in violation of this section
019, 1,00,in I% 27. 1973 c 1:3 art 5 s 7!
100.271 xis Pi`i". Repealed. I959 c 500 art 6 a 13
100 275 Mti P"d Repealed, 1057 c D43 s 72 !
100.211 xis 14 t t Repraled, 1957 r D43 s 72 1
100.28 PLANS FOR REST AREAS, TOURIST INFORMATION CENTEPS AND
WHI1,11 SFArioNS. I tie provisions of any other law to the contrary notwithstanding,
the tommi—,int i of transportation is hereby authorized to cause to be prepared plans
and epee ilii rations and detailed designs for the construction of buildings and facilities
fin rest art as, toun%t information centers In combination with rest areas, and weigh
180.M ROADS, GENERAL PROVISIONS 2354
160.263BICYCLE LANES AND WAYS. Subdivision 1. Definitions. As used in
this section, ';bicycle lane" means that portion of a roadway set aside by the govern-
ing body of a political subdivision having jurisdiction over the roadway for the. exclu-
sive use of bicycles or other vehicles propelled by human power and so designated by
appropriate st'�s and markings: and "bicycle way" means any path or sidewalk or
portion thereat designated for the use of bicycles or other vehicles propelled by hu-
man power by the goveming body of a political subdivision.
Subd. 2. Powers of political subdivisions The governing body of any political
subdivision may by ordinance:
(a) Designate any roadway or portion thereof under its jurisdiction as a bicycle
lane.
(b) Designate any sidewalk or portion thereof under its jurisdiction as a bicycle
way provided that the designation does not destroy a pedestrian way or pedestrian ac-
c2as.
Subd. 3. Designation of lame. A governing body designating a sidewalk or por.
tion thereof as a bicycle way, or a highway or portion thereof as a bicycle lane under
this section may:
(a) Designate the type and character of vehicles or other modes of travel which
may be operated on a bicycle lane or bicycle way, provided that the operation of such
vehicle or other mode of travel Is not Inconsistent with the safe use and enjoyment of
the bicycle lane or bicycle way by bicycle traffic.
(b) Establish priority of right-of-way on the bicycle lane or bicycle way and txh.
erwise regulate the use of the bicycle lane or bicycle way as It deems necessary.
(C) Paint lines or construct curbs or establish other physical separations to ex.
clude lila use of the bicycle lane or bicycle way by vehicles other than those c;xcdi-
cally permitted to operate thereon.
The des7anating governing body may. after public hearing, prohibit through
traffic on any highway or portion thereof designated as a bicycle lane, except that
through traffic may not be prohibited on a trunk highway. The designating governing
body shall eat and maintain official signs giving notice of the regulations and pnon-
ties established under this subdivision, and shall mark all bicycle lanes and bicycle
ways with appropriate signs.
Subd. 4. Speed on street with bicycle lane. Notwithstanding section 169,14, sub-
division 5, the governing body of any political subdivision. by resolution or ordinance
and without an engineering or traffic Investigation, may designate a sate speed for
any street or highway under Its authority upon which It has established u bicycle lune;
provided that such safe speed shall not be lower than 25 miles per hour. The ordr
nonce or resolution designatin a safe speed is effective when appropriate signs desig-
noting the speed are erected along the street or highway, as provided by the govern.
Ing body.
( 1076 c 199 a 13 J
100.204 REPLACEMENT OF BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN NAYS. Whenever
an existing bicycle lane, bicycle way, pedestrian way or roadway used by bicycles or
pedestrians or the sole access to such Is destroyed by any new. reconstructed or melo.
sated federal, state or local highway, the road authority responsible shall replace the
destroyed facility or access with a comparable facility or accl'ss Replacement is not
required where It would be contrary to public safety or when spinu) of population.
other available ways or other factors indicate an absence of need for such favtCip• or
access.
( 1976 c )69 a 16 1
160.27 MS 1053 I Repealed. 1057 c 043 a 72 1
16017 PARTICULAR USES OF RIGHT OF WAY; MISDEMEANORS. Subdivr
cion 1. Public node. With the approval of the proper mad authority. billboards for
the use and purpose of displaying public notices only may be erected within the halts
of any public highway. Including city streets.
Subd. 2. Benches and abehen for persons waiting for strut can and buses.
Benches and shelters for the convenience and comfort of persons waamng for street
cars or buses may be placed and maintained within the limits ..t any strewn da high.
way, including streets and highways within cities, when a Ilcenw, lit permn therefor to
7
C
L6111
��
iui IIIIC
league of minnesota cities
April 5, 1978
Gary Wieber
City Administrator
P.O. Box 777
!lonticello, Minnesota 55362
Dear Mr. Wieber:
This letter is written in response to your request for some ordinances which
regulate mail boxes in the city. Our files are fairly thin in this area, but
I was able to find a couple of them for you. I have enclosed the following:
Ordinance No. 38 Tyler
Ordinance No. 53 Brewster
Ordinance No. 141 Renville
I hope that these ordinances are of some help to you, and we would appreciate
it if you would forward us a copy of any ordinance that the city passes in
this regard.
Sincerely,
IN a l� r
Bruce Goldstein
Research Analyst
BG:glb
Fhel0oure
300 honover biulding 480 coder atreeL. onint pnul. Iminnenotn 55101 (612) 222.2801
7
INFORMATION SERVTCF. OF Municipal
Reference Bureau and League of
Minnesota Municipalities, 3300 University
Avenue S.E., University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414
Clasalfication No. 5251
Municipality nviltr
Date n lil 17_ 1970
Subject Mailhoxe,
ORDINANCE NO. 141
An Ordinance Piolit sting the Placing Of Certain
Mailbolces In Tho City Of Ronville
The City Council of the City of nenville, nen�llle County,
Minnesota. docs ordoin:
Section l: That no additional mailboxes or similar receptacles
shall be erected along any street• alley, boulevard
or on any City property within the City limits of
the City of ltenville.
Section 2: Penalty: Any person violating any provision of this
ordinonce shall upon conviction be punished by a
line of not more than $100.00 or by Imprisonment
for not to exceed 00 days, plus in either case the
costs of prosecution.
Passed by the City Council this 13th day of April, 1070.
Attest:
DON PAUL
Tlayor
LESLIEIIEE'I'Z, � �
City Clerlt
('trb. April 10, 1970) �
(+
1� i G Cy✓ �C�
/ t' . ••crag_, K .� C, / r � •: ,: o
7i1F0Rt J1TZ0id i RVIC of municipal Reference Bureau and League of Minnesota 1.Sunici—
Palitics: 15 University IJ,brary Building, 11inneanolis 14, Rinn.
Regular library loan naterial for the loan
Period of 30 days, 41Classification Nohen you have corpleted # •%
Your work or copied portions of interest,
please return. #
Subject 1'lunicipylity 21�-
Date
M Ortlin.O4Dott"CrVW., OO cOnan.t+ion
.nd W. of M.11 6oasa Wilhin SAO Yrllpt
limirt.
$rc tr O t°mmon
:,iln°dr �nlrler,4Minew:a,
rya �r� +n4n ,.iu� 1 ,tf, tGnti +
for
o. d + MO0t.i1 .af I
nr r+il+t•1r• O. O e e I.m.
° Su a' 7.°ir of am�er,.n0 •..II
l,nDldry
r„°I rout + os,*rs
Srtr cn ln. or��n nnt♦ 1.,t1 to rtix+.j
n ,nd ,rtd• ••s Dsatsy. and pxol.c.-•
Ifon. t r
it. V. M4UUG14Y. Cl.el 61.1
7
INFORMATION SEIAITCE OF Municipal
Reference Bureau and League of
Minnesota Municipalities, 3300 University
Avenue S.E., University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414
Ordinance No. 53
AN 01S1NCE-REGU1.AT-
I INC, TIIF PLACEMENT OF '
SI,RUC7•URF.S ON THE ROU- .f
LEUA It D', IN II,'S FN -
TIAL AREAS 1N THE V11.- I
LAGF. OF BREWSTER. MINN. I
The Viilagc Council of Theo-
Vilinge of Brewster. plinnesola, -
Do Ordnin:
Scrtion 1. No persons, firm,
fhusiness, or coryxiralion,shnll•• i
place. cnnshuci or erect' nay
Pe.-Mnent Structure, trees pr
other object on the boulevard
••a(joining any street in the a�
residential arm of Ihp Villarri
of Ilre,%ter.
Srction 2. Nothing as net
not In this or•dlonnce shnll•prn- .
r hibil the, installation of safety
or uafric control sil;ns by the
i Village of Ihewster or any
nuthorirrd nnpl,,y" or ags•nt ,
1 of the Village. r
I & tirnt 0. Prnnlly. Any per•
I Snn convicted of violating nny
provisions of this ordinnnre,
shnll br guilty of a utisdcntca-
nor and ahnll be punished by n
(int• ,,d In rxevcd S10000 or
lly Irnpri—anent fnr a period
not to excerd nlnM•v (00) days.
'Phis onlinanre shall he in
` full force and effeet frmn and
niter its pnssngc nod publicn-
t ion.
• Passed by the Village Coun: 1
if of the Vilinge of Ilmwster.
l Minoesotn, this Olh duy ,of
Alnl r:h, 1970. r ,
(SI.A 1.)
llonnld Acnean, Atny;v .
A Ilrst:
I1 IIenry tV,•at`r', \'ilfngoC4•rk
Classification No. 525J
Municipality Brewster
Date March 6, 1970
Subject Boulevards
MOINICELIA CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MOMING l
April 10, 1978
Members Present: Con Johisor., Dar. 8lonigen, Phil White,
Arve Grimsmo, Gene Walters.
L•O0 P.M.
1. Assessment Policv Review.
King Forness with Springsted, Inc., reviewed a report prepared April 6, 197e
relative to special assessment considerations. This report was prepared as
a result of the request by the City Council to review the current assessment
policies and to give consideration to revising the assessment policies for
new developments. Various questions were raised on devising an assessment
policy and it was consensus that such policy should take shape in ordinance
form. Although no decisions were made as to final policy, council consensus
was as follows on the following six items raised in Springsted's report on
page seven.
Item 1. Consensus wao that oversizing of the utility lines should be
finalu•cd in a matter other than with ad valorem taxes.
1 tem 2. Con9ensus was Lhat oversizing should be financed through initial
asseaamen L rather than to collect any portion through a connection
fee.
item 3. Consensus was that improvements for a new area should be partially
financed by a cash deposit. There was some deliberation as to
whether the percentage should be 25% or 40% or wiLhin that range.
Additiuclally it was felt that the improvement should be assessed
over a shortar period of time and consideration vould b^ given to
a five ;;oar period.
Iter.; :. IL was felt that the rate of storm sewer improvements for commerclat
and industrial properties should be greater than the rate for
resldcneial properties.
5. D. 63i,)n was deferred relative to a subsidy of 5CYA for new street
improvements where a street already existed.
Item 6. G.cision was deferred on whether the city would wish to consider
more than dust a front footage assessment on corner lots.
At 1!1e end of tho review of the spocial assessment conuidernLions it was
inci,:aLed that King Torness, with SprLlgsted would be incorporating Lilo above
itemJ 111te a draft of rut assessment policy and this would be prcacnted at the
rouncil's next meeting. C1langea and revisiona could be made, at that time nni
aster the next meeting n final draft could be praparoifor final consideration.
CFatting recessed until 7:30 P.M.
7:+G P.M. For tho record, Mayor Johnson pointed out that because or mechanical
difficultiea, the tape recorder was not working for the post throe
or fuui' mceLi.ugd.
/Y
2. Public Hearing - Vacation: of Cedar Street between I-94 Freewav and Oakwood
f Dri n -, (County Road #117).
l-.
Mr. Samuel Peraro has requested the city vacate the above mentioned street.
Vz*. Peraro owns land on the east and west side of proposed vacation. Only'
other acutttrtg property owner is Mr. Stuart Hoglund. ,''r. Poraro indiected
that his request, if approved, would allow him to raise the elevation for
proper drainage of both the property that he owns to the west, which io
plan:—.1i for Vance*s Standard Station, and to the east so that proper drain-
age .rid take place. He further indicated that he would possibly be baild-
t•ng atother bul=ding on the site west of Cedar Street at a later .late.
No other comments weru received relative to the hearing, on the propo.:-�a
vacate.)n.
A ma* .:)n was mace by Arve Grimsmo, seconded by Gene Walter and unani.mosc;ly
carri.-d to appro ,a the vacation of said street contingent upon the city
reta.Lrdng easement riZhts for all utilities and an easement also be erant!A
tc rthern States Power for their eai.sting utility underneath Cedar Strict.
Firth -sore, all costs of recording the vacation would have to to borne by
Mr. F rnro and fir. Hoglund. It was indicated that no buildings could be put
dir-e.ly on the va.atrd street.
3. Con_,: ioration of P ,loninc Lot 6. Block 5. River Terrac,;. from 9-1, to R -A.
h'r. 7,O! tin La:ui..rj recently purchased the basement nomo locat d wt Lot 6,
81--K ;, of River Terrace, and has requested to rezone the Pnit.rty !'rt
R-1 (:,i:1+Ic Family), to I-2 _(Single and Two Family Rc:si.dcntial) to all*w
th,L : ,:1itian of a eceand story and for the structure to bo then rent(;d out
1., r "telex. Mr. 5anners indicated at the mcuting that he did not lritcnfi to.
up:. -' fr.iperly .imiorr within the area and his intention;; were, merely to ul,-
t-r,,i_ the property ar.d develop the structure into a duplex and rrslt that
x,y r•'_!r r ue_ would not bo economically feasible.
A pr.;},�rty owner in the area, Mr. Jack Reeve of 101.7 WeiA, River 'Arent,
nils ,t J that he wea opposed and felt that there wore sufficient dupl x .s
i
!h , res 'L:d that another ane was not warranted rt thiz time. Upon thn
reyuL�sL .r.' t+:r mayor to find out the property owners that worn opposed ro
'tie r + ; Inc-, a {§ht property owners stood up to indicatt. that they wer,, in
oppoL.t:-in. A notion was made by Phil White, seconded by Arve Grlmsmo and
tinani- . rsly carded to deny the rezoning request.
;rl.h, ',unty Ommmunity Action Recvcltna Proaram.
M:. Xaf!aret Miceli, Program Director with Wright 0aunty Q,nrmwity Act."hn
lot' :.• Le the rezycling program that is funded by CP,TA Title V1 Zp, P.iril
Pr +�e:t ,'.runt, rvvi ,wed the proposed program with the city cowl :li. l;,trar 1pr.
th it,)granwouid b•! to set up various collection pointe: for th,i pick ut, of
plass. Initially glass would.be the only item that would bt pl.•✓ f up and
-vontus'ly if tht program is encrassful, rags, papers, metals, m—. %I .t+ 4LS
u.d ather items may be considered for pickup. Ma. Micali indi+:r.t^;i the
-n points would be possibly at grocery stores within thry comaanity
of Monticello. A nc;ion was made by Gene Walters, seconded oy Dan Blonigon,
L.1 u;.sr.imosly cirri d to support the program.
-2-
` 1,-10-7:
k :oiucration of Chance Order for City Hall.
LIhyhr
a%-,ract provisions for the construction of city hall provided a claus-
wh�rrby an equitable adjustment would be made if additional fill., excavaticn,
or removal ii nucessary. A change order has been submitted by Hcnry 9.
::iktclson for $3300 for additional site work encountered by the cubruntractor,
r �c :rcobzon, relativo to excavating, loading and removal of unu-u:tabla
:ill for the cess pool, septic tank and foundation on the city hail sit.".
A notion was made by Gene Walters, seconded by Arve Grimsmo, and approved to
.o approve the change order. Voting in favor: Gene Walters, Arve Grimsm),
3oc Joftnson, Phil White. Opposed: Ban Blonigen.
6. .:onsideration of ADDroval of Resident Eneineer from Orr-Schelen-Mapmron
Turing Construction of 1977-3 Street Improvement Pro.lect.
Mr. ';hn Badalich reviewed a proposal with the city council relativi to
ha%-!.:< Reith Nelson serve as resident engineer during the construction of.
77 Street Improvement Project. Mr. Nelson would op+rate out of the old
•.Kliage hall on a daily basis. Any questions relative to tha project would
be referred to Mr. Nelson plus the old village hall would s:rve a; the
headquarters for the inspectors from OSM on the project. Estimated ir.cr•,ased
,out t3 hsve Mr. Nelson down as resident engineer would be from 5"h4fi0 to
$197f. A motion wan made by Gene Walters, seconded by Arn Grim. -.10 rad
s.irw sly carried to approve the proposal as presented by John Bada_.ich.
Rr. 2clali:h indieaLel that the cost should not exceed $20()0 in any event.
7. !,ratign of AdoptLrg Ordinance Relative to Utilization of Boul-mard.
.i. crapvti ardinance was reviewed by the city council rel;:iatine Lha u_'
a: L-Llevards within the city of Monticello. Primary reason for Lh'i i,r11-
:.a:c: i3 to repulatc• private mail boxes other than for U.S. Postal "Jrvicc
that aro for newspaper delivery service or direct advertising; or India -_t
aiv.r.i:ing of Arty kind. A motion was made by Gene Walters, seconlcd by
Ar•.v :rimxw to adopt the ordinance. Voting in favor: Grua Walters, Arva
;rlm-ma, Con Johnson. Opposed: Dan Blonigen and Phil Whlt;:. (, c(, Al;(rda
.:-,pi .• -ant x-10-78 #1.) Any existing prohibited uses would I.0 td :ow °J
y isys to be brought into compliance with city ordInancct.
8. ApFr'ov &l of Minutes - March 23 and March 27, 1978.
.I
h _rc suing no corrections, the minutes stand approved TL, ,�rr.3ant+ i.
9. .r^n ':Quer - June L. 1978.
%kitior, was mads by Co., Johnson, seconded by Gene Walter.: and unanhr-u,.iy
;arriel to have an Open House, June L, 1976 for all city buJ:Jir,I.: U. -laid -r a
.t.e new city hall.
1C. �u.rt_rly Heetin,z with Department Heads.
rte:; buncil met with the following departaent heads: rire Chief, !tupr•se:-
tal. :vea fawn the Sheri ffIa Dspartment, Senior Citi son Center Dirertur,
:dji,- Store Manager, Civil Defense Director, and public Worxs Director.
:'aricas items were reviewed. Additionally, a motion was made by Gent Walt.rs,
s+.alued by Phil hhite and unanimously carried to have Mike Rajal■ ,:untset a
-3-
pro'e-ssional firm todo ifiel painting of" he� oldfire,
city hall-, 1'6r t) -
d'-par*.ment and. -Ehe senior ,citizen center;, in theevent Chat liho cllly' ere -W
did not have adequate time to complete the •pioj6ct.
I ol—
'-urtheitiore, it was indicated because of the: early meeting started 6
'F.M. rcla tine to the assessment policy review with a recess;, at' upper, titan; u.
zh&t the city would pay for the, supper meal, at the River Inn.
There bei-ng,no further business, the meeting was adjourned.?
City .1ftainistrator
tl
c-
cp
o
+ MONFICELLO PLANNING CO,vMMT.SSION
SPECTAL MF,ETTNG
1pril 11, 107' - 7:30 P.M.
PL!BII( HUART%G RE\ITSLD COMPREHF%'STYL PLAN, ZONING DISTRICT AMI:NW%vr!i,
AND IONLNG ORDINANCE AMrNDMENTS
Members Present: Jim Ridgeway, Flan Fair, Fred Tupel, Dave Baur-i
Denton Erickson{., Lunen Klein.
1. Review by Planner-, Dick Dwinell.
Dick Duinell, e•onsultint; planner- with Howard Dahlgien AtitinciatOli,
tevieued the revised .omprehenvi.ve plan indicating that it is a
three -told process to develop such a plan. Elements of the plan
implemrn'atiun include research and analysis, definition of goal,.
and politics, and the a.Lual development. of the comprehensive plan
for land uses within the City of Monticello. Mt•. Dwinell alin
v,virued file proposed zoning diritritt Changes and tilt- ionin,s
ordinan, . amendment..
/onio'. Djl tvk c Amendnuvlts. ,
111v I'ulloairig dt-.. Iibed parcel, Ili' land are prnpn.4ed Inn rt-iun.n:
en .n.nldant,e with Cho r•.•%i.ed .omprehe isivc pIIt,,;
%ppro% i ma L e l y 120 at tv ti I et a l ••d between (minty
II i ghua}
-5 and 1-e14, \-rill of Pvaivi. Road from R-1 (Ring),.
)amity Re.tdential) to 1-1 (light Industrial).
v1I Dc,anoII indic.It.d 11 hat lilt- roarcun for propn,alna nn. 11 a Chan;,
wat., m..Lo it cen.Igtent with the abutting property t., .hr lint th,
tit -it bVIIIL Wrtheln Slatt-s Pnwel• Co., and to tilt- prup.•Ily it, tile,
wt .e, Ihat being unerl a.i indttwt tial by Mr. Bill Rrel'elll.
he I l.,%ing te..t immiy wan presentt-d:
Idl v \olall: Opp—wil to Ioi.ctting due 111 pvo%tmI1% , t 14•.441-111 ..t-1
au,"i it) tht• Baht .
.)w cLl, .: Indicated that he ware an owneer of the land heln•:
n nputied for reigning and he would Icent %11 01 a
1I'd' III fig.
CD.:,i if Ifitk-wn wag not prt-„t-nt at tilt- Commencement of for,.
T. el 111".
4-11-78 P.C.
The Planning Commission iudia ated that there would be a buffer cif
the railroad trat ks and County Road x/75 from the present vesiduntial
area to the industrial area and a motion was made by Fred Topel,
seconded by Fran Fair to approve the rezoning.
Votina in favor: Topel, Fair, Ridgeway Bauer. Absent: Erickson.
At ea Approximately a 400-500' wide strip of land located
between West County Road 39 (Golf Course Road) to the
West and Marvin Road (Minnesota Street) to the Fast,
all bordering the North Side of 1-94 from R-3 (Multiple
lamily Residential) and B-4 (Regional Bcrsi.nc_ss) to B-3
(Highway Business). (Area is approximately 3/4 mile In114
and 43 a(r in ei7c.)
Mi. Dwinel l indicated that reason fur proposal is to make the aria
bord,-rine 1-414 to the north of the freeway cotnme•rt ial from County
Road :41 to State Ilie;hway #25.
Ihr following testimuny was givens
Will rain HoI'imaul, i --presenting Harold Ruff: Fell the arra
cntrrel% tiouth of West Cotinly Road #,10 to clic 1r(•rwa)
should be tuned as t ummert irrl and in addit ion, the dict
int lnd.inl: tur•r,-nl Ruff Sul %age Yard to the ea -0 of l lri
�4trt-,-t tihoold be tommve-cial sirlet that is the current
use of that .area. Reardoll 1'ur Ihih, %It . Ilo1 fman indi(ati•d,
1) the otrrpa is on Count► Road 111 over the f vv•way wi 1 I
I reale alut .)f bail• in W,-�tt 1 Wanly Road 14I, 2) pr/.prc.,4-d
plans -illow that lam St reel one (lay would be aii ot,-rpn.ti.
ut(l r-414, :) there were presently mangy uNeh in the arca
that i.uul d he nonconforming i 1• they were (I) he toned d -i
re.idrntial , 41 Vel I that any olhel, i Inin(4 would by tt•rt
1 r.tti it tit,- 1'ur eurr,-nl cummri•a ial ilcvs prehcnt I� lot it, (I
to the area.
1„ud.m Non�tn: ingctived a -i to the inning III' thi aura and inyurred
a� to the amtlunt 01' land that world be rrinned Io comrvi, idl
north til' 1-04 in the particular .area.
Htl l r Int Ilot•1'm.ka: Ind it at ed a law Anil is fut'.veablr it au eat
woald he rrit+ned to r,-xideiitial.
1 aetl 1 m wt, 111adc bt Date Baurl , Net untleil by Ivan I alt •cud unaut
tri 1.It call ted. (Ii•i, kaon ahtienl), to appro%e the Ici•m1na, a,
c11411• •cl rat.
C\ ill: it Illi~ 1 ilnt, D,-nton 1'ritkt.on arched at the wivetlnit.
2-
• 4 -ll -ib P.G.
Arta ?. Lots 3 through S, Block 33 and Lots 3 through i, Block
lo, Upper Monticello from B-4 (Regional Business) to
R -B (Residential Busi.ness).
Mr. Dwinell explained the r.•ason for proposing a rezoning from B-4
to R -B was that there was a concern expressed from residences in
Blnck, 1 and Blork Io since they would currently be nontonfot-ming,
uses and not allowed to be uebuilL in case of fire or added on to.
the t,liowing testimony was given:
Ben Smith: owner of land in Block 33, favored rezoning to R -B
since that. would allow present. resi.dentia.l property owners
to rebuild and also add on to their homes and make i.mprote-
ments.
Clifford Olson: owner of land in Block 16, would nppo.ic the
rezoning of Block 16 since this would only lease the
first two oot lots cast of Ilighway 2$ as 11-4 and this
he certainly felt would .inhibit future commercial develop-
ment becaose of restrictions in terms of Int Hire and
add.ilionall) felt that: the area with it.s proximity to the
railroad tracks would be more compatible in a .nmmeriuial
zone. '
It rill, point. X11•. Dwinell dict indicate that there would be various
uvt . tit .c bominr.-ss nature al lowed w.ilhin tilt R -B.
Mal% .lo Quick: properly owner in Blork 3,i, indicalud the would
fait)) winning lilt- arra to R -B.
kr11,11 01yotl: indicated that he would fatov the reinning of
Block 1% flnm D-4 to R -B.
ticlth Crandall: property owner LI Blotk 33, would Iotot the
rezoning' it, an R -D, of Block 3•1.
lilt Planning I4.nunis•4ion felt that Since the property owuet4 to
Bl.0 k .; world tic inl'at4.r of the rezoning bu(. Ihu onl) te,tImont
I rt ut %ed from Block 10 way nnmewhat opposed, thal it rd•:111 he to l l
I,% ,to.t rezone lolec •; - S 4.I' Illotk 33 tit k -Il, and teat•• lot. 3
n1 III n 6 Io a1 11-4. 1 mut ion was made by Date Ilaner, tic, oodrel h)
Do Ili I I Irk-i'm and nnanlmou..ly carried to refono unl) 1 n, ; N
,I' BI „k :
properly a quasi residential business arcaas opposed, to .a 134
which it is presently zoned as. Currently the entire area proposed
fill- ohc rezoning is .in residential usage.
The follouine• testimony was received:
Wnr.^.e Ki.rscht : owner or pruperty in Dlnek 3u• inquired about.
types of uses that would be allowed within a residential
business district. Mr. Dick Dwi.ne 1. then read the uses
from the of dinnnces that would be allowed as both permitted
and cundili.nnal uses w•i.thin an R -B cone. Mr. Ki-rscht; in-
dicated that he would favor a more restrictive residential
zoning distract Eur the area such as R -I as opposed to R -R.
lAuvenve Clausen: owner of property on ninth halt. of Block 37,
indi-vaLed by felt that Block 37 should remain B -q to allow
fur fnturr•e expansion or those businesses presently on the
north halt' of Block 37. He fel L tQL the st•Lbar k requ "w
meats would be more restrit'L,ive in an R -B.
.I.rhu-andberr;: CeA, the entire arca shuuLd be R-1 sin -.V fill
the pit,vvty owners thrit fire, currently utilizing the pr•opc--rtN
rail u r 'Su'll .I /mIl i ng.
Hu --h t1r Kinnou: indivated also that he would C.rcnr k-1 zoning.
motion waK made by Fr rd Wyel to rezone the above i ndi c aced prnpnrl:v
Wim R-4 to R -R. Phis mnt Wil dived for Irick of a srr•nnd. Ry iongrnsns
the Planning Cnmminnion derided to hold another hearing on both the
,,all half of BlooL 1; plus Block 311 fur c•onsiderati.cor uf? rcrrmitiq P•ha,
ares to R-:, or Singh and fun Family Residential. Thin meeting
sh ntld take plat e at the Planning Commis8lun's regular meeting In ?fay:
4r. -.r is lutN 1 Wough 4, Block 13 from R-3 (Multiple 1•ami'ly Rc-si,tlen••
tial) io 13-3 (Ili-hway Business).
vU . ON k Udine) . explained that. 1•hk area is being considered IWP
teroninq based on the fart that .it nWUS Walnut $trert, which t,c
pl.urro•d to be improted in 1078 and ell the uses :clung Walnut tit Peet,
mm i d he proposed to be of a commercial nature. Additionally, Ou'
bloc il immediately to the r imth of Murk 13 slid get ro+uned appy ori -
mately Q% mnnUm ago and it was felt at the time that black 13 mhould
rlw be renewed at a later date. No teatimony was rr.eiced from the
aodre•n. r I Plat I %v to area 5 and a motion wan made by Denton Le ickr un,
.rc .coded by F ran Fail and unan i mouyl y carried to approve the r•c•ionto 1.
a-
4-11-78 P.C.
Area o: 'lh.it part of the Northerly 'a of the SE � of NW4, Section 14,
Township 121, Range 25 lying between County Highway 117 on
the East to State Highway 25 on the West from I -'L bleavy
Cndustri.al) to B-3 (Highway Business). Area consists of
approximately 12 acres.
Mr. DwineJl indicated the reason behind this request would be to
bring the zoning of the arca in line with the proposed comptuhensive
plan and it appeared that the area would be better utilized in terms
of tonin, as commercial as opposed to the present zoning of heavy
indust a Lit.
The following testimony was received:
J..srph Culp: owner of land in the area just cast of Cedar Strect
indicated hr would favor a commurri.al zoning of the property
lensing that it was more consistent with future potential
at,(' of the land.
A motilin was made bt, Fran lair, seconded by Fred Topel and unan
imou,lt ravvied to rozone the arca to D-3, highway husiness.
ltea . Approaimalcly la ac res lying North of County Ilishwa� 1;75 "aid
Vast (it' East County Road #.19 from R-1 I[Si,ngle family Resi.den-
tiall to R-3 (Multiple Family Rewidential).
Mr. Dt.inell indicated the reason for the proposed thango is that
ptctionNl% a portion of the property that is currently lying to
the Sl or I'ast County Road 39 and north of County Rond 75 was rc[-
iuned to R-1 and this would be compatible with the surrounding ai—a.;
fttithermore, it urns indicated this wns a part of the oterall tomprts
henaite plan for thiy arca to have it am a multiple fanilly zoning
disc It t.
(here was some diatu.tiialou whether ov not 10 leave the are.t o,4 R-1
tit ,inglr family ,oHidenti,it not knowing exactly what potential ii -4t -
the pioperty could bt• put. to. However, i1. wax felt that it wuutd be
m.ue .ytprtape Late to ,,one It to R-3 at this time and Then this in e1•irt t,,
w.atld be lino of the reasons for the Planning C'otmni.ssiun in veliowin4
the •,tmplollonBitr plan rather than to be dictaled to by dt•tt•Inpmtnt,
this wontd •ivt a guide plan In termor of future nae of the prnpet•ty.
A m.it I.nt UI, inatle lit, 04,111,111 1 t• I i khan, Nr. onch-d by I tail i a ii .and •tn.in
tit .tphtotr the reioning.
C
Lanaideral ion of Xming Ordinance Amendments.
Amendment 1. Section 111-3-4, Arca and Building We:
(A) PURPOSE: This suction identifies minimum laud
arra and building* size requirement., in be pr•)cided
lar each Zoning Dist.vic 1 as I im.ed in t.hc table
bel Vw:
OTSTRIt I 1.01 AREA LOT H.I DTII ub 11 DI VC. "ITI G l'I
R-; Q,000 S0 3 .slur.ie,
(Bl LUI AREA PER UNIT: The Int area per unit require-
ment for Lown houses, aparLmen" , condominiums, and
planned unit developments shall be calculated on the
bas i s of 1 he Lot a I arca in the pro,jec t:
Multiple family
1 '.9,1bo square feeL for firm unit
-V 1� plus 2,000 ,square fent for each additional one
tin
bedroomit
�� plus; 2,500 square feet I'or each addiLineal two
bedroom Unit -
1 mot ion was made IT I can hair, sccandvd by feed Toprl and un.rrrirnusl%
crried to appro%v this amendment.
lmendment 2, Spetinu 1111-30, uff-street Parking Requirements:
llll NUMBrR or SPACES REQUIRED:
MUI:IIPIG I'AMJLY IN(;';: at least 12)
/ off-street parking spaces per dwellrnr, unit
A` with one enclosed Space per Lwcc (2) u=4.
1 n.�t um was made by 1 red lope!, seconded by Denum Lrcc Lain .end
nn.utrmou,ly aupri.ed t.1 approve the .rmenrlment.
Ilvnchacnr ,1. Section 10-13-4 "D -.l" Highway Iturtlnesh District,
Condi.11onal haps:
(11) Canmeec ial planned unit developmrnlas reGnlated
by chapluv al of this Oudinanrv.
1 m..trccn uas math h� llatr Balker, seconded by 1 -ran lair and inianue-i,1%
t a c r It—it 10 appro%e IIIc amendment .
Amcnd,Icnc J. Section 10.14-4 "0-3" Rvaiunul IArhineav Drtilpr.t,
l and I t i -nal Thee:
C Commercial planned unit tletelopmenl a% reynlated
by Chapter 211) tit' thin Ucdinance.
u
4-11-76 P.C.
A motion was made by Denton Erickson, seconded by Fred Topel and
unanimously carried to approve the amendment.
Amendment j. Section 10-5-2 nN-311 Medium Density Residential District:
10-5-2 PEILv1ITTED USES
(G) Any use permitted in the hrR-211 District and as
regulated therein
A motion was made by Denton Erickson, seconded by Dave Bauer and
unanimously carried to recommend adoption of the amendment.
Amendment u. Section 10-8-4 ^R -3a Medium Density Residential
Di s' -ic t:
(C) Multiple family dwelling structures containing
thirteen (13) or more dwelling units, provided
that where the multiple family units are contiguous
to single family residential zoned property, the front,
side and rear yard setbacks will be a minimum of forty
(40) feet, and that the minimum setbacks tor parking
areas shall be forty (40) feet on the t•runc yard, and
fifteen (15) feet on the side and rear yeards, with
approp-late screening and landscaping with Durable '
materials designed in harmony wil.h the principal
structures and an overall landscaping plan.
A motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Fred Topel, and unanimously
carried to recommend adoption of the amendment..
Amendment 7. Section 10-3-5 Off -Street Parking Requirements:
(D) GENERAL PROVISIONS:
S SPALL, AISLE AND DRIVEWAY DESTGN:
(q) Curbing: Alt open off street parking ovvas and
driveways in .industrial and cnmmeecial ureas
shall have a six (6) inch nunsurmuuntubly con—
tinuous concrete curb around the perimeter of thn
parking area and driveways. All curb designs
and materlaIa shall be approved by the t'Ity
Engineer.
Atthts point a Discussion was held whether or not to Include apart ••
meat houscs within the provision and it was felt that they certainly
should he included along with t>wnhousee. Additionally, pruvtsion
aas tinted in the ohd utanco relative to curbing and landstapinrg whh h
wah .e. t hero lO.•,i-5-1 ll) that turtling and landat aping would be exempted
t'nr scnslc, two family and inunhnctwes and it wah fell by the
Planntuv, tommieviun that this provision should not oxcmpt le,wn
Lnuhrh.
%lots in aah made by Dave B,iuer, seconded by feed 'lapel and unanimously
carried t:r approre the above ordinance amendment with the peau{hdm
r. 3-11-j3 F.C. --
that it be amended to include all areas except for single and two
family developments and in addition that the previously mentioned.
ordinance reference relative to curbing and landscaping not exempt
townhau,..-s from these requirements.
Amendment Set -tion 10-3-1} Signs Section )f.):
3. Sight. for promoting and/or selling a development:
p"tojet't I'or the purpose of promoting or well ing
a development project of three (3) to twettty-
five (25) acres, one sign not. to exceed one
hundred (100) square feet of advertising sot fare
may be erected on the project site. For projects
of twenty-six (26) to fifty (50) acres, one or
two signs not to exceed two hundred (200) aggre-
gate square feet of advertising surface may be
erceted. For projects over fifty-one (51)
acres, one, two or three signs, not to exceed
three hundred (300) aggregate square feet of ad-
tertising surface may be erected. No dimension
ly shall exceed twenty-five (25) feet exclusive of
4. �l supporting structures.
5ueh tiigns shall, not remain after ninety fit-- (95)
percent of the project is developed. Such sign
t perm7t shnIf be reviewed and renewed annually
by the City Council, if said sign is lighted,
it shall he illuminated only during those hours
when business is in operation or when the model
homes or other developments are open for tntviness
purposes.
MotI-it' wa-t made by Fran Fair, seconded by Fred Topel, unanimously
tarried to approte the adoption of the ordinnnto.
Amendment 0. Session 10-3-9 Signs Section (P) 2 (H) (Q)
111'. Area, Height Regutat.ions:
Road Classification Speed Arca Ilei alit
(MPtl) (sq.FtI (rept)
Major Thoroughfare•r 30 l(lt) 22
40 150 25
SO 200 2S
A di.yt-uKyion rae held relative t:n the menta of increasing the
proposed .square t outage and height. aroma of the rigna within a
major- thoruttgrt'are. It was pointed out by Dick Dwineil that the
affect of the amendment would enlarge the signs goiter aignifitantly;
however, it war thrt tonaensus of the Planning Commission that the
pr•uptiral warn reaatrnahle within a major thoroughfare areo. Motion
waw made by Dave Hauer, seconded by Frod Topet and unanimously
tarritd tet approve of the proposed ordinance amendment.
0
C�
-u -
i
'
1mc•ndmcnt' lu: Adopt:i on of nn' ordinance for. the, management of, the
Mississippi Wild Scenic and Recreati-onal4Rivcc°$ystem'
r
and Lite shoreland areas' of the City' of Monacg614o.
('See 4-111-78
supplement #I.e),
o�
Motion was made by Fred Topel, seconded by Fran Fair, unanimously
°
carried to recommend Mie adoption of the proposed ordinance amend-
o0
mens.
4. Comprehensive Plan.
At the conclusion of Lite review of the Comprehensive Plan and the
o 0
proposed zoning district changes and proposed ordinance amendments,
° a motion was made by Dave Bauer, seconded by Fred Topel and unani-
mously carried to approve the revised comprehensive plans with re-
visions to keep Block 16 as commercial and that the revised comp-
rehensive plan would be further amended if necessary if the public
hearing for the south half of Block 37 and Block 30, that would be
later hold at the Planning Commission level, and if ulLimately
approved by the City Council, would be coordinated .into the Comp-
rchrnsive Plan. It- was brought to the attention of the Pl.annfng
°
Comm.iaSion Lhat. Lhe City Council would hold hearings on the very
same roues relative Co the Comprehensive Plan :adoption and the
zoning district amendments at possibly their first. meeting in May
Of
I'h,ve bring no ('urther business, a mot.iun was madr. by Daie liauur,
se.onded by Denton Erickson, and unanimnusly carried to adjourn.
° ❑
0 9
9
o
0
o p
q
r ti
Ga4.� Wf-- ber, °
q
('ia� �Cdniinistrutnt• °
GW .'Ill, q
o 00
0
C�
-u -
i
429.061 LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS, SPECIAL ASSF_Cti\3kJ%TS S"
writing that the county auAnoror county• trci urer, as the case may be, include by
name on he records for such purpose Such notice shall stale the date, time, and
place of such meeting, the general nature of the improvement, the area proposed to be
a%%e%-0ed, that the prolwsed assessment roll is on the file with the clerk, and that war.
ten "oral objections thereto by any property owner will Ix considered. The notice
shall also %rate that an owner may aplwal are assessmreet to do Incl court pursuant to
section 429 OBI by serving notice of the appal upon the mayor or clerk of the mono.
panty within 20 day's after the adoption of the n%sessment and filing such notice with
the district court within len days after service upon the mayor or clerk. The notice
shall also inform property owners of the provisions of sections 435 193 to 435.195 and
the existence of any deferent procedure established pursuant thereto in the mono-
pally.
Subd. 2 Adoption; Interest At such meeting or at any adjournment thereof the
courted shall hear and pass upon all objections to the proposed assessment. whether
presented orally or in writing. The council may amend the proposed as%essment as to
any parcel and by resolution adopt the saute as the sl—aal asses%ment against the
lands named in the assessment roll- Notice of any adjournment of the hearing shall be
adequate if the minutes of the meeting sa adjourned show the time and place when
and where the heanng is to be continued, or it three days notice thereof be published
in the newspaper. The a%wssmrnt, with accruing interest, shall be a lien upon all fire.
vale and public property included therein, from the date of the resolution adopting the
asses%ment, concurrent with general taxes; but the hen shall not be enforceable
against public property as long as it is publicly owned, and during such period the as
sessment shall be recoverable from the owner of such property only in the manner
and to the extent provided in section 435.19 Except as provided below. all assns
menta shall he payable in equal annual installments extending over such p•nod. not
exceeding 30 years, as the resolution determines, payable on the first Monday in Janu-
ary
ano-ary in each year, but the number of installments meed not be undorm for all assess
mems int luded in a single assessment roll if a uniform criterinn for determining the
number of installments is provided by the resolution The first installment of each as
sessment shall be included in the first tax rolls completed after its adoption and shall
bre payable in the same year as the lazes contained thervutt, except that the paymrnt
of the first m%tallment of any asm—ment levied upn unimproved property may be
deferred until a designated tenure ,year, or until the platting of the property or the tam
str uctmnn of improvements thereon, upon such term+ and conditions and based upon
such standards and entena a% may be rovided by resolution of the council In any
event• every assessment the payment of which is so deferred, when it becomes pay
able, shall be divided Into a number of installments such that the last installment
thereof will be payable not more than 30 years after the levy of the assessment. All
a%ses%ments shall bear Interest at such rate as the resolution deterines, not exceed
Ing eight percent per annum. exce-pt that the rate may in my event equal the avenge
annual interest rale on bonds issued to finance the improvement for which the assriu,
ments are levied. to the first Installment of each ae%e%snient shall be added interest
on the entire asses%mem from a date specified in the resolution levying the aswsa•
turret, met earlier than the date of the resolution, until I)ecentbe•r 31 of the year to
which the- first installment Is payable, and to each subsequent installment shag be
added ntere%t for one year on all unpaid rn%tallment%. or alternatively, any aswas
mint may Mr mate payable in equal annual installments including principal and enter -
est, each in the amount annually required to pay the pnncgaaI over such period with
interest at such rate as the resolution determmrs, not exceeding the maxrmtun perud
and rate nleerefied shove In the latter evrnt no prepayment shalt he accepted w1der
suldevesunt 3 without pa)nrnt of all Installments due Us and rte luehng I)rcember 31
of the year of prepayment, together with the original Anne qal amount redwed only
by the, amounts of,prindpal Included In such ensullmrnt%, computed on tie annual
anurloateon ba%isk.When payment of an assessment n deferred, an authorized In flus
suldive%nn, interest theme for the pined of elefennent may he made payable amu•
ally at the same- limes as the prop l installments of thr mtrs%nwm would have
ben lavable it not deferred, or ntereu for this pend may Iw added to the pnnuled
annum of the a%ws%mrnt when at lee omrs payable, or. it oto provided In the reek
tion levying the assessment, interrw thereon to f3rcember 31 of the year before tiv
first installment Is payable may be ftrnpvere
Sahel 3 TramerNlted to audiles, prrpayer een. Alter the aulmon of the a%srsr
norm, file a perk shall transmit a certified duple ate of the a%%r%sntrnt roll with each us•
stallment, me ludeng Imerru, se•t bah sepr.uratrly to the lucent aucbtur of dee uuntY
ORR-SCNEIEN•MAYERON RASSOCIATES. INC
I w• .n• Lr 'S:•,ta yrs •Ii
April 24, 1978
Honorable Mayor And City Council
25n East Broadway Street
Monticello, MN 55362
Re: Thomas Industrial Park d'
Gentlemen:
Enclosed please find an Engineer's estimate for utility and
street improvements for Thomas Industrial Park. Most of the
costs are based on those bid by Arcon Construction Company
under Improvement 77-1. Other costs for which there was no bid
item under the original contract, were negotiated with ,lrcon '
Construction under the assumption that this improvement will to
constructed by Change Order to Improvement 77-1.
The total estimated construction cost is $45,971.45. This vost
includes the construction of six additional cervico stubs
(6' sewer and 6" water with valve) from off new mains con-
structed last year, plus new main construction including
permanent street with curb and gutter for Thomas Circle.
The costs pertaining to the six additional service stubs, inclu:ling
a now manhole with a 40' sewer stub, and a 30' 8" water stub
necessary for extention along Thomas Circle, and the relceation
of one hydrant from the center of a proposed Lot is $17.671.0n.
This portion of weWk should be done prior to blacktoppinq of
the proposed road now under Change Order No. 1 to Improvement
77-1.
if this improvement is undertaken by Changs order No. 2 fur a
cost of $45,971.45, then the total increase of work by Chae.9p
order would be $88,043.45 (C.O. 41 - $42,072.00), a 24.9'
increase over the° original contract of $353,616.95. A twenty
five percont increase is the maximum allowable under State
Stat,jtv.s. Chapter 429.
7
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
�. April 24, 1978
page 2
If these coats are favorable to City Council. and to the developer,
we recommend that this improvement -for" Thomas -Industrial Park
be constructed by Change Order. to Arcon Construction.
Very truly yours,
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
6 ASSQ.CIATES, INC.
John P. Badalich, P.E.
uCity Engineer
JPB/am _•
V
C
7
Engineers Estimate
For Thomas Industrial Park
Change Order No. 2
Improvement 77-1
Sanitary Sewer
6" VCP (Extra Strength)
10'-12' Deep 140
L.F.
@ $6.20
12'-14' Deep 140
L.F.
@ $ T.80
Standard D:anhole
;S' Dee;: or Less) 1 EA.
@
$630.00
= $630.0a+
14anhule installed Over
Existing Pip?
(8' Deep or Less) 1 EA.
@
$1,000.00 •
_ $1,000.00
Excess Manhole
:Over 81) 6
L.F.
@ $50.00
= 5300.0:1
Y
6" CIP (Extra Heavy)
Service Pipe 460 I..F.
@ $10.40
= $4,754.00
Connect 6" Service to
Existing Sewer ripe
4 EA.
@ $300.00 •
_ $1.2011i.00
Cunstruct Inside P.-V.C.
Drop Section in
ex. t•1.H. 1 EA.
@ $600.00 •
_ 5600.
TOTAI.
_ $10,334.00
Watermatn
6" D.I.P. class 52 540
L.F.
@ $10.10
$5,454.00
8" D.I.P. Class 52 270
L.F.
@ $=10 •
_ $3,564.00
Fittings 400
lbs.
@ $07. Tr
_ $llu.0u
6" Gate Valves 6
Coxes 12
EA.
@ $210.00
$2,520.00
8" Gate Valves b
Boxes 1
EA.
@ $340.00 •
_ $340.00
Hydrant Relocation 1
EA.
@ $TR -.TU •
_ $dnb-0T
Hydrantsc� 1
EA.
@ 07=
Cut f+" x 10" Tee Into
!:r.istir.a Main (Incl.
All
F:tttn(;s). 6
F.A.
@ $830.00_ •
_ $4,5E•O.�,i�
Cur. 0" x 12" Tee Into
l:xt3t:r.�r Main (Incl.
All
ttings). 1
EA.
@ $900.00 •
59.0 �
Cut a" x 10" Teo Into
!,xlstinu Main (incl.
All
I's.LinW. 1
l -.A.
@ $850.00 •
SS_+J.
T6'rAI.
r
11
I
'
..
$toro SL'W£ r
- r' F
-
15" RCB CT, IV 175 L. P. 0
$17.40
,i.0 'b'• .atch Basins $ EA. @
$500.00 *
i" R. r1ared End
_
Lot, t3 ,:t 1 EA. @
$225.00 * -
�'�•, '
-t .r:+ Outl�•t Ditch
Lx,7avae wn 3400 Cu. Yds. @
S0.85 • r
52,F•'.
TOTAL
Street Construction. 6 Restoration
M.a.O.T: Class V
,
Agrrcghce 420 tons @
$2.82
2331 Biturinous
Base Course Material 135 tons
a $11.28 •
S1,�2 .c.
2341 bitnr.fnous
Wear Course material 135 tens
t► $13.25
B: t .mi nous 148teria3L
For Tack Coat 80 Gal @
$0.80
Type "D" Curb 6
Gutter 650 L.P. @
S4y50
S2js2�..i
Saedinq (Incl. Necessary Black
Dirt, Soed and
Mulch) 1 Acre @
$250.00 •
.Snd (Incl. necessary Black
Dirti 400 B.Y. 13
$2.00 -
$800. ?l
TOTAL
GRAND TOTAL
• Arcrn=s negotiated price (no bid item under
oriq�al c,.�.•-
r
11
I
WRIGHT14
COMM'i ';O!-i'9I^TT ACTION, IUC.
Box 39
tru'.'ariy _ 'Cl 55390
April 14, 1978
"Sim Dn Resolution"
W.-eP.EAS the realization and the promise of soles ener--r will
be observed and celebrated throughout the nation on the :rd
or May, 1918; a=d
Mi'rREA3 the daveloprent of solar technologies vill provbOe vo
aL, idant, econonic4l, safe, and environmentally conpa`ibl,:
and
L;.:;LLAS a day devoted to a celebration of all solar technolog.eE
ni,otld help inform the general public, industry, and labor, nn.i
demonstrate the potential of the sun in meeting the natio+,'n
enc-rgy nucdz ; and
M AXAS FaMral, State and local governments should foazar ci:d
unr.ou-ago the further development, ref:nemont. and utill=ution
:`.!' nolar cceray+ technologioe;
OF IT FT'SOLVFD that (1)local public officials be..
;:vi*cfl to i: --Ln with Wright County Community Acticz. :ac. "n
r.ro:;a:ity.nb Moy 3. 1978 as "Sum Day", (2) that npprnpr*.&�n
a:siei.;.s-e and ceremonies be observed to cake clear V.c- iv ov-
t.s•,.;e cP the Sun and ways in which ve can further bezefiz teov.
;+n t--- Y;:d lip,'st. and (3) that the energy necdg tf lav-.vcare
rr!ot30 u:% errrtiva responses to those needs be bighlightNe an
LI
TRUCK RE00*01DATION
All street department personnel and I have reviewed the bids received
on April 27, 1978 for one (1) new single axle dump truck complete with
snow plows and sander. We recommend that the bid for a gasoline powered
vehicle be awarded to Hoglund Bus Company, the lowest responsible
bidder, for $23,004.00. Also, we recommend that the vehicle be equipped
with 9.00 x 20 12 ply tires at an additional cost of $140.60 for a
total award of $23,1L4.60.
Mike Rajala
Public Works Director
SINGLE AXLE TRUCK BIDS
30,500 CVW
Bids Opened
2:00 P.M. Thursday
April 27, 1973
tROM
Superior Ford
9700 56th Avenue Horth
Fiinneapolia, kN 55442
Monticello Ford
Monticello, MN. 55362
TOTAL PRICE DELIViRY DATE
Diesel $30,660.00 120-150 Days
Gasoline $23,573.00 90-120 Days
Diesel $31,711.00 180 Days
Gasoline $24,804.00
}/ Hoglund Bus Co. Diesel $29,862.00 November 1978
` Monticello, MN 55362 Gasoline $23,004.00
8201 Abbott Ave. south
Minncapolic, Minn. 55431
April 15, 1978
Mr. Gary Wieber
City Manager
Monticello, Minnesota 55362
Derr Gary:
Q•
First, I want to thank you for serine; me on monday.
April 17, 1978.
As I stated, I would be interested in purchasing the
parcel of land we discussed owned by the City adiarent
to the railroad track on highway 25. After receiving
the engineer's report and going over it with ny adviser
I will make an offer.
14y plans for the property would be building a fust f,uoJ
restaurant such as McDonald's, Burger King, Burger Chef,
tiardeo's or an A fl W.
My family likes Monticello and the school system and we
plan on moving Into the area in the near future.
Sincerely,
Drank .1. Foils
MONTICELLO PUBLIC WORKS DEPT.
t WORK REPORT
April 24 May S, 1978
STREETS/PARKS
1. Cut down trees on Prairie Road to provide
drainage for Anders -Wilhelm Estates.
April 26, 27.
2. Completed parks cleanup and prepared for
summer use:
- fertilized all parks and liquor store.
- opened, cleaned and repaired rest rooms.
- set up swing sets, garbage containers
and pienic tables.
3. Swept: streets for city of Becker.
4. Removed and hauled away cement floor at Senior
Citizens Center - April. 27.
S. Began preparing fire hall for painting -
Mdy 1-5 -- 2/3 completed.
6. Painted .liquor store - 2/3 completed.
7. Swept uptown streets - April 28.
S. Chipped brush along curbsides - 12 hours.
WATER/WASTEWATER
1. Installed/repaired water meters - 6.
2. Inspected/located for contractors - 5.
�. Repair d and ftplraj sewer rodder and bucket
machine.
4. Cleared trickling filter underdrai.n system and
removed wind barriers from settling tanks May 4.
S. Dug out and repaired hydrant on oakview Circle
and installed water line on East Broadway - April 27.
u. Serviced pumps and meters at reservoir.
Lq