Loading...
City Council Agenda Packet 11-13-1978AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL November 13, 1978 - 7:30 P. M. Mayor: C. 0. Johnson Council Members: Dan Blonigen, Arve Grimsmo, Gene Halters, Phil White. Meeting to be Taped. Citizens Comments. Consideration of Rezoning Request from R-1 to Rr3 - Lot 5, Block 1,_ Riverside Addition - John Sandberg. Y i' 2. Consideration of Variance Request from Parking Lot Curb Barrier Requirements - Silver Fox hotel. /3. Consideration of Approving Surety Arrangements for Oakwood Industrial Park Partnership on the Improvement of Dundas Road. J4. Consideration of Policy Relative to Four -Fifths (4f5's) Voting Re- // quirements. ✓5• Consideration of Variance for Off -Premise Sign - Electro Industries. ✓6. Report from Civil Defense Director - Doug Pitt.. Q0� ✓1. Consideration of Adoption of 1976 Edition of Uniform Building Code. 8. Consideration of Requiring Registration for Rental Units in the City of Monticello. QConsideration of Extension of Time for a Portion of the 1978`1 Project. 4\ `0. Approval of Minutes - October 23, 1978 Meeting. Ir\ '/11. Unfinished Business. J12. New Business. t.r+M-w.�-.-.-w-w�r r+-.�r�++�r�a�►�+•.M+wwwa w� 0TE: Appeals Board meets after conclusion of Regular Council meeting - Stokes Appeal. AGEtiDA SIJPPLE201T 1. Consideration of Rezoning Request from Rrl to R-3 - Lot 5. Block 1. Riverside Addition - John Sandberg. As you may recall, this item was brought before the City Council at a previous meeting, August 28, 1978. At that time, the City Council tabled a decision to allow Mr. Sandberg an additional 60 days to show the neighbors the type of building he would be proposing, and hopefully, to change their minds against an apartment building in the neighborhood. Council action also was that any new information should be brought before the City's Planning Commission. I have talked to Mr. John Sandberg, and he has indicated that he is still working on the information, and would like a further extension of time. It should be pointed out that according to Monticello City Ordinances, if e rezoning request were denied, the applicant could apply again, but six months would be required to have lapsed before application can be made again. Since this matter was continued, property owners within 350 feet have again been notified that this item will be on the Council's agenda. Eh closed, for your review, is the agenda supplement for August 28, 1978, and also the Council Minutes of August 28, 1978, One correction should be made is that the lot size was incorrectly read off of the plat, and y L should be 69,000 square feet instead of 109,000 square feet. qe POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval or denial of rezoning request, or another extension of time. (Approval would require 4/5's vote of the Council). REFDiETIC Si Minutes of August 28, 1978 and Agenda Supplement pertaining to this item for August 28, 1978. 2. Consideration of Variance Request from Parking Lot Curb Barrier Require- ments — Silver Fox Motel. At a previous meeting, this variance request was denied, but there was discussion at the Council Meeting that the Council might possibly be Creceptive to a variance with a particular time limit on it. Agenda Supplement - 11/13/78 As you recall, the facts are as follows. Mr. Ed Larson, part-owner of the Silver Fox Motel, requested a variance to allow the elimination of curb barriers around his truck parking lot. Mr. Larson indicated that the elimination of the curb barrier requirements in this area would allow J for more maneuverability of the semi -trailers to get in and out of the parking lot, especially during the busy season. Mr. Larson also stated that the curb barriers recently installed have been damaged by the heavy A0� trucks running over them. I/ Mr. Larson would now like to request the same variance, but would be agreeable to putting a time limit of up to 24 months on the variance itself. Mr. Larson indicated that the reason for the request, in addition to the items mentioned above, is that future expansion may .V occur in the area In which the curb barrier is required. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval or denial of variance request up to 24 months on parking lot curb barrier requirements. (Variance needs L✓51s vote for -iryr.,vol). 3. Consideration of Approvina Suretv Arrangements for Oakwood Indu:.trl�, Park Partnerahin on the Improvement of Dundas Road. The Oakwood Industrial Park Partnership is proposing a surety arrange- ment to cover the improvement of Dundee Road by submitting a note to the bright County State Bank in care of the City of Monticello. This r a� rangement would allow the City of Monticello to utilize the note for 13 times the amount of improving Dundee Road if the, project were not completed to the satisfaction of the City. Gary Pringle, our City Attorney, has reviewed this arrangement and he feels there Is some concern relative to a conflict of interest between the shareholders in Oakwood Industrial Park Partnership and Wright County State Bank. As you may know, some of the principals of Wright County State Bank are also partnere in Oakwood Industrial Park Partner- ship. When I reviewed Gary Pringle's concern with Dale Lungwitz, Dale assured me this arrangement for the surety is the very same arrangement as a letter of credit, and would secure the City since this note is being guaranteed by Dale Pogatchnik, who is not a member of Oakwood Industrial Park Partnership. Enclosed, I am submitting a copy of a letter written by Dale Pogatchnik 10 to Gary Pringle guaranteeing the note to the City of Monticello. Additionally, I will be talking to Gary Pringle for his further Q comments on Dale Lungwitz's statement relative to the surety arrange- #mant. ti`' b j POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of Accepting Surety Arrangement with y Q Oakwood Industrial Park Partnership for the Improvement y of Dundes Road. REFERENCE: Ehelosed letter from We Pogatchnik. - 2 - Agenda Supplement - 11/13/78 4. Consideration of Policy Relative to Four -Fifths (4/5's) Voting Require- ments. The Monticello City Zoning Ordinances covering requests for re:onings, variances and conditional use permits require a LV5's vote for approval of the City Council. This provision becomes a problem when one or more members of the Council is missing, as it then becomes necessary to either have unanimous support from the Council or if one vote goes against the applicant, there is no war the request can be granted. It would seem to me that a better war to handle this type of request is that when an issue of this nature is brought before less than a full Council, the applicant would have the prerogative of coming back to the Council at a later date to get approval. This provision would only apply, of course, in cases where the request was voted and approved upon by the members present, but the y 4/5's vote was not possible. For example, this would be the case approv- ing a variance or rezoning request that went in favor of the applicant 5 "3" to "0", or "3" to "1" In both of these cases under the present P ordinance, the request would be denied, but it would be possible, if there was a full membership, that a missing member or members could have roved of the request, and the request actually would have received \\. 5's approval. \` POSSIBLE ACTIONS Consideration of allowing applicant to bring request for rezoning, variance and conditional use permits back to the Council when initially defeated beccs:;�, of a lack of a full membership of the Council. 5. Consideration of Variance for Off -Premise Sign - Electro Induatrirv- This item is placed on the agenda contingent upon item Y. being p approved. n� As you will recall, at the last City Council meeting, Bill Seefeldt of Electro Industries, requested a variance to allow an off -premise sign �O to be located an the Rod A Gun Club Property. This sign would measure approximately 18" x 24" and stand approximately 8' high. Although this variance request was approved on a 3 to 1 vote, it did not have the necessary 4/5's vote to pass. POSSIBLE ACTIONi Consideration of approval or denial of variance request (variance request needs 4/5's vote for approval). 6. Report from Civil Defense Director - DouR Pitt, Since Doug Pitt was unable, due to a conflict, to attend the last quar- terly meeting, he requested that he be placed on the next available agenda to discuss with the City Council various aspects of the Civil Defense department, including additional warning sirens for Civil Defense. POSSIBLE ACPIONi Like the Department Quarterly Meetings, this is merely a report. However, specific action may come about as a result of the report presented by Doug Pitt. -3- Agenda Supplement - 11/13/78 7. Consideration of Adoption of 1976 Edition of Uniform Building Code. Enclosed, please find an October 23, 1978 memorandum from Loren Klein relative to the adoption of the 1976 Edition of the Uniform Building Code. It should be noted that the recommended action would be to delete the existing ordinances relative to the Building Code and to adopt a new code. Additionally, according to the memorandum from Loren, the following changes should be made: 1. Amendment to clarify two conflicting ordinances; one which requires all parking lots to be hardsurfaced, and another one which would exempt single and two family residences from that requirement. A determination should be made as to which provi- sion should be enforced, and the other provision should be repealed. 2. Ordinance Section relative to the Uniform Eire Code should be amended and should read instead of the 1973 Edition, the 1976 Uniform Fire Code. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of adoption of 1976 Edition of Uniform �j Building Code, along with twoante amendments outlined above. REFERENCES: Memorandum from Loren Klein of October 23, 1978, and 8 Model adoptive ordinance. Consideration of Reouiring Registration for Rental Unite in the Citv of Monticello. Enclosed, please find a memorandum from our Building Official detailing �. tho reasons for suggesting a rental property registration system. Pri— mary reasons are as follows: 1. Assurance that all rental properties would be inspected. 2. Provide for a systematic order. 3. Registration fee could be charged. In effect, people who benefit would pay, rather than put this portion on general property taxes. Loren has enclosed a sample ordinance modeled after the City of St. Cloudge ordinance relative to this matter. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of adopting ordinance relative to the registration of rental property. R1'1*P1iIIdCiSr Phcloaed propos�a ordinan spared by Loren Klein modeled r after the City (of oud. Proposed memo prepared by Loran Klein relative to the issue. - 4 - M Agenda Supplement — 11/13/78 9. Consideration of Extension of Time for a Portion of the 1978-1 Proiect. Northdale Construction is requesting the City Council grant them an extension of time from November 1, 1978 until Spring of 1979 for the completion of concrete curb and gutter in Riverside Addition. Reason for this request is the availability of concrete from their supplier, Monticello Ready Mix. According to Northdale Construction, the earliest they can get concrete is November 10, 1978, and this is not a definite commitment. It should be noted that Northdale is not asking for an extension of time on the entire project, and they will keep to July 1, 1979 on the completion date for the entire project. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of granting extension of time. {A — 5 — 14 TO: City Council FROM: Gary Wieber, City Adndnistrator DATE: November 13, 1978 SUBJECT: Agenda Item 3. - Surety Arrangement - Oakwood Industrial Park Partnership on the Improvement of Dundas Road. In reviewing the above matter further, our City Attorney, Gary Pringle, contacted me this afternoon and indicated his opinion is that the surety arrangement proposed by Oakwood Industrial Park Partnership would secure the City of Monticello. This is somewhat contrary to his initial reaction to the proposal, but in his review, Gary Pringle felt this arrangement is better than a letter of credit, and in fact is a letter of credit backed up by a real estate mortgage. Mr. Pringle indicated that one clause should be added to the Development Agreement, and that is as follows: �- "It is hereby agreed that the surety arrangement for the improvement of Dundas Road will be made available to the City of Monticello) and, if funds are illegally withheld contrary to contractual arrange- ments, any and all attorney fees and legal fees involving litigation against Oakwood Industrial Park Partnership will be taken out of aforementioned security arrangement." GW/ns I 5. Consideration of Rezoning Request from R-1 to R-3. Lot 5. Block 1. River- side Addition - john Sandberg. Mr. John Sandberg is requesting that the above lot, which is 109,000 sq. ft be rezoned from R-1 (Single Family) to R-3 (Medium Density Residential). Mr. Sandberg has indicated that the reason for the request is to allow for a four to five unit luxury apartment building sometime in the future. According to Mr. Sandberg, his intention is not to start right away on the apartment project, but to be able to know whether or not it can be built so that as he Belle off the surrounding property, he can notify prospective property owners that there will likely be an apartment building on this particular lot. It should be noted that Mr. Sandberg' s reason for asking for an R-3 zoning is that this particular zone does allow a four or five unit apartment complex to be built as a permitted use and does not require the renewal of a condi- tional use permit as would rezoning to an R-2 which is a Single and Two - Family Residential Zone, However, Mr. Sandberg has indicated he would be willing to sign an agreement whereby he would put a covenant on the land such that no greater than a five -unit apartment complex could be situated on the land. Reason for this covenant would be to assure the abutting property owners that even though it was zoned to an R-3 zone which would normally allow up to 12 unit apartment houses as a permitted use, that on this particular lot there would only be situated at most a four or five unit apartment complex. Should the City Council feel that the covenant is one provision that should be pursued further, it could consult legal counsel. However, if it does feel that the area is proper for anything up to twelve unite, no covenant is necessary or in a reverse situation, that four unite would be entirely too much for the area, it could deny the 1 request. , 1�At the Planning Commissionve last meeting, there were several property owners J objecting to the rezoning request. Primary reason for the opposition was that the property owners felt that they had built in a single family resi- dential zone and the area should remain as single family. It should bo noted that public hearings for rezoning requests are held at tho Planning -Commission level. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend 'P denial of the rezoning request to R-3. (� POSSIBLE ACTIQiu Consideration of approval or denial of rezoning request. I' �V � tie REFERENCES: See enclosed map depicting area. 1 6. Consideration of Ordinance Amendment reRardinR Salvage and/or Junkvards. Currently, Monticello Ordinance Section 10-3-2-(N) requires all junkyards and/or salvage yards to be in an industrial district and effectively screened. This section goes on to require that all non -conforming junkyardu and/or salvage yards shall be discontinued after one year unless they are brought into compliance with this ordinance section. —3— Minutes - 8/28/73 Ron Peters, a neighbor, indicated that he would be satisfied with a 75' lot provided that the remaining 90' lot would not be subdivided someday in the future into two additional parcels. Mr. Peters was informed that the remaining 90' lot would again need variances from City ordinances should Mr, Straw decide in the future to ever try and subdivide this lot. Motion was made by D. Blonigen, seconded by A. Grimsmo and unanimously carried to approve the subdivision request creating two lots, one being 75' wide and the other being 90' wide for Mr. Darwin Straw. 4. Public Hearing, - Variance on Setback for Garage by Tom Chock. VIr. Tom Chock requested a variance from the setback provisions for a rarage at his apartment house at 801 W. 3rd Street, Lot 5, Block 42. Current ordinances require a 10' sideyard setback and Mr. Chock requested a to be allowed to build within 5' of the West property line. Since Mr. Chock owns the abutting property to the west and no other opposition was heard, a motion was made by A. Grimsmo, seconded by D. Blonigen and unanimously carried to approve the 5' setback variance for the garage on Mr. Chock's property. 5. Public Hearing on the Proposed Use of Federal Revenue Sharing Funds. In 1979, Monticello expects to receive approximately $89,000 in revenue sharing money. According to Federal Revenue Sharing regulations, it was necessary to hold a public hearing to allow input from the citizens as to the possible uses of these Federal Revenue Sharing funds. Ro comments were indicated by the citizens present at the meeting, and therefore, no action was taken by the Council. Another hearing will be required when the budget is adopted to allow further input and actual determination of the use of the 1979 Federal Revenue Sharing funds. 6. Consideration of Rezoning Request from R.1 to R-3. Lot 5, Block 1, Riverside Addition by John Sandberg. Mr. John Sandberg requested that Lot 5, Block 1, Riverside Addition be rezoned from R -I (Single Family) to R-3 (Medium Density Residential). Mr. Sandberg indicated that the reason for the request was to allow for a four or fivo-unit luxury apartment building to be built some time in the future. Mr. Sandberg indicated to the Council that he would be willing to put covenants on the land that would limit the number of units to say four or five, and also place covenants that would limit the number of people that could be living in each unit to only two people. At the Planning Commission's last mooting there were several property owners present objecting to the rezoning request. The primary reason for the opposition was that the property owners felt that they had built in C a single family residential zone and that the area should remain as single family. 2 - Minutes - 8/26/78 Virgil LaFond, a neighboring resident, spoke for the neighborhood group and indicated that they were all still opposed to the rezoning and indi- cated that the area should remain single family and that an apartment complex would hurt the neighborhood and the surrounding beauty of the river property. Roy Lauring also spoke in opposition to the rezoning and suggested to the Council that the City should consider buying this lot from Mr. Sandberg and create a natural environment park for the people of the City. Mr. Sandberg asked the Council for an extension of time to enable him to present further information such as plans on the building and also to enable him to consult with the neighborhood residents as to the type of building he proposes. Mir. Sandberg indicated that the extension of time would allow him the chance to show the neighbors what type of building he would be proposing and hopefully to chmige their mind against an apartment building in the neighborhood. By consensus of the City Council, the item was tabled for 60 days with any new plans, etc. being presented to the Planning Commission before Council consideration. 7. Consideration of Ordinance Amendment reaardinR Salvage and/or Junkyards. Currently Monticello ordinances require all junkyards and/or salvage yards to be in an industrial district and effectively screened. This section goes on to require that all non -conforming junkyards and/or salvage yards shall be discontinued after one year unless they are brought into compliance with this ordinance section. In order to rectify this situation, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to amend the provisions of this ordinance section requiring that all non -conforming junkyards and/or salvage yards be allowed to continue as non -conforming uses provided that an effective screen is put up. In reviewing the State Statutes relative to junkyards and/or salvage yards, it was found that monies were available from state and federal funds to effectively screen in any junkyard and/or salvage yard that met the following criteria: A. Within one-half mile of a state trunk highway; B. Visible from a state trunk highway; C. Zoned other than commercial or industrial. State and federal monies will only be used to fence in that portion of a junkyard that is visible from the trunk highway, and if the City required fencing of the entire junkyard, monies would not be available for this typo of fence. Additionally, it was pointed out that the State Department of Transportation would not put up an effectivu screen fence unless the City of Monticello would amend its ordinances to allow the present junk- yards as permitted, lawful, non -conforming uses, rather than the present ordinance which indicates that those uses must be amortized out within one year. -l- MEMORANDUM TO: Gary Wieber, City Administrator FROM: Loren D. Klein, Building Official DATE: October 23, 1978 SUBJECT: Adoption of 1976 Edition Uniform Building Code On September 16, 1978, the newly adopted Minnesota State Building Code went into effect within the State of Minnesota. Because of the large number of changes to the CODE, it has been recommended by the Department of Administration, Building Code Division, that the Municipalities who have previously adopted the CODE repeal their previous code and adopt the new CODE. We could also amend our present ordinance to adopt the changes, but because of the numerous additional items and numerous deletions, it would be much less cumbersome for our Council to abandon the old ordinance and substitute the new model adaptive ordinance. I have enclosed, for your information, a copy of the model adoptive ordinance the City could use to adopt the new Minnesota State Building Code. As you can see, the new building code incorporates by reference such codes as the Uniform Building Code, the National Electrical Code, the Plumbing Code, etc. You may want to note that in the model adoptive ordinance under Section 1, Sub - Section C, that there are five (5) items that are not a mandatory part of the code, but can be adopted by reference in this ordinance at the discretion of our Council. It would be my recommendation as Building Official, that our Council consider adopting the first four (4) items of this sub -section, and that they not adopt item number five (5) dealing with Appendix "D" of the State Building Code dealing with Building Security (SBC 4101.4110). This option provision deals with mandatory locking of facilities, which are usually secured anyway, and at times becomes cumbersome for the fire departments. Additionally, you may want to note that the Building Code Amendments in our ordinance 4-1-2 are no longer acceptable as amendments to the State Building Code or the codes it adopts by reference. Most of those amendments have, since the time of their original adoption, become part of the State Building Code. Items such as the provision in our ordinance 4-1-2, dealing with requiring hardaurfaced driveways can be dealt with in our zoning ordinance. One example being in ordinance 10 -3 -5(D)- (8) -(k). In that provision, we could remove the words "except in the came of single and two-family dwellings". With those few words omitted from that sentence, not only could we have added the hardeurfacing of driveways to our zoning ordinance, but we could also remove a conflict of regulations we previously had in requiring hardaurfaeed driveways in one area of our ordinance* and exenptin g it in another area. Section 5-1-1 of Monticello Ordinances adopts the Minnesota Uniform Tire Code, 1973 Edition, and all amendments thereto. As of now, the 1976 Edition of the Minnesota Unifrom Tire Code and its amendments have been adopted by the State of Minnesota, and possibly we should make the language in our ordinance to show adoption of the 1976 Code, etc. UX/no a 7 CM4PIER I Sul Le I W, CODE SECTION: 4-I.1: BUILDING COOL 4-1-2: OROAHI[ATIONAAND ENFORCEMENT 4-1-�: P[RHII$. IN$P(tTIGN! AND FCCA FIRC ZDNL 0..1tT! VIOL.TION! AND PCNALTI(! 4.1-0: Err[cTovc DATC Or OROINANCL 4.1-1: BUILDING CODEI TM[ MINNt/OTA $TAT( BYILDIND CO OC.CO►• OI WHICH I! ON PO FILE IN TMC O//ICL Or TNC E1T♦ EL[RK. MA9 0[[N ADOPTED NT LAW7 1977. CHAPTER 381 ASA UMIrORM OUILDINO CODC APPLICAOLC THROUONOUI INC STAT[. SUCH CODE 12 MEREST CONFIRMED AS THE BUILDING COO[ Or THECI TV Or MONT ICLL LO AND INCORPORATED IN THIS ORDINANCE AE COMPLETELY AS or AET OUT IN FULL. A. THE 1976 EDITION Or INC STAT[ BUILDING CODC ADOPT! SV RCFER[rICE THE FOLLOWING COD[!: 1. 1976 EDITION Or THE UNIFORM BUILDING COOL. ID[NTIf ILO AS Flsi."i 2. 1978 EDITION 0/ TNS NATIONAL ELCCTRIC Coot. IDENTIFIED AS NEC"i ' 3• 1971 AMLRICAN NATIONAL STANDARD S►r[TI COOL root ELEVATOR$. OuNSVAITLII$. ESCALATORS AND MOVING WALK$, 10[N71r ICD AO ANSI A17-1 - 1971 AND SUPPLLMCNT$. / ;l ANSI AI . u - Ig 2. ANSI A17.1S - 197i. ANSI A17.Ic - 197 ANSI A17.I0 - 1973. YYY ANSI Al�f.lL - 19;5. ANSI M 7.Ir - 197R, ANo A1451 A17.1D . 1976. 4. 1976 MINNESOTA PLUMSINO CODL. IOLNTI►ot0 AS MMD 120 THROUGH MMD 135• 5• "FLOOD PKoorINO REDuo.wow$R. JUNC 1972. Orrice Or THL CHIEF EHGINLLRS. U. S. ARMY. 6. MINNESOTA MLATINO. VCNTILATIMO, AIR CONDITIONING AND RLrRIOt RATION COOL, I., I.rILO •! SBC 1101 THROUGH SBC 8509'. 7. "DOES IOM AND CVALUATION CRITLRI. FOR ENCRGV CONLCRVATION IN NEW BUILDING, AODI TIONS AMD RCMODELDo E1L. Of BUILDINGS AMC STANDARDS FOR CCR/AIN ERISTIMG PUBLIC BUILDING$ . IOEN11r ICD as 2MEAR SLCTIOM 1.16001 THQCUGII 2MCAR SEclooN 1.16006. (SBC 6001 - 6006). 8. STATC OF MOMME$OTA MOBILE MONC INSTALLATION STANDARDS 197 IDENTIVI[D AS WAR 2MCAR 1.90450 INSTALLATIONS AND PLLATLD DCFINITIONS IN o.gD103- 9. STANDARDS OF PLOTORMANCL FOR SOLAR CNCRGV SVATEMS AND SYSSVSTCMS APPLICD TO EM[ROT NLto Or BUILDINGS. 1971 EDITION. IDEHTIrIco A! 214CAR 1.16101 IMROUGH 2MCAR 1.16107. B. IN ADDITION TO INOSE ITCH$ LI$TLD ABOVC, CERTAIN APPENOICIL. STANDARDS AMO SuPPIL• M.MTAL MATLRI♦►$ RLrLRLHCLO IN 1149 CODE ARC N[RtOV ADOPTCO BY RCFCRCNCC AS PART Or INBUILDING COD$ Or iNL COTI Or MONTICELLO AND INCORPORATLD INTO THIS ORDINANCt ♦S COM►LLTCLI AS or 291 OYT IM ►ULL. INCLYOLO BUT ARL NOT LIMITLO TO THE IOLIOWlN01 1. It AL REOYIRLNCMI$ rOR FALLOUT NLLTt AS. IOCNTIrICO AS SBC APPtNDIA "A". 2. VARIATIONS IN SNOW LOADS* IoCNllroto A$ SBC APPLNDI. 3- 1976 1.1MIro11M Bu1LO1NG COOL APPCNDIR CNAP/CRB 23. 35- 4. MINNLSOTA PLuM$ING Coot APP[NOIE W. e7 4_1-1 L•1.) Z. INC FOLLOWING ADDENDICCS. STANDARDS ANC JUPPLCMCNTAL MA7EAIALS ARE NOT •N ANDATORY M PART Or THE CODE, BUT ARE ADOPTED BY .LrCRCNCE FON IHC .;ITT Of O'ITI:CLLOANL ARC INCORPORATCO INTO THIS ORDINANCE AS CCMPLETELT AS If SET OUT IN rULL: I. SB. APPENDI■ PC°. ABBREVIATION, AND ADCRCCSSCS Or 'CCMNICAL COCANIIAIIONS. 2. 1976 1bC APPENOIR. LMAPTCRS 13. 1 .. 1B. L8. liO, ' 1, .�7 ..0 1' MINNE30TA PLVMOING CODE APPCNOICL., A. C. D. r AN: r. b. rL000 PRoorIND RCOULATIONS. :ECT IONS :01.2 THAOUGN 218.... L_1-2: ORGANIZATION AND CP£ORCEMENT: INC OR..ANIEATION Or THE BDILL—, .CPA&TKENT AND CNFORCCMENT Of THE COD[ SMALL OC CONDUCTED WITHIN THE .V?,rLINCS C.TARLISMC. ST .HAPTC■ 2 Of TMC UNIT RN BUILDING LOC: 1)16 EDITION. HC CODE SMALL Al Cvrc%cr,. WITHIN INC INCORPORATED LIMITS OF INC LIT♦ Or MONTICELLO AMU ANY E.TRA'E-HITOPIAL LIMITS PLOVITTED WY LAV. ERTRATERRIIORIAL LIMITi '.HALL BC ANY AREA. ..zo.PC"'CL' ON .,NINCOi- IORATCD. OESILNATED UNDL- A JOINT -POWERS AG RCEMCNT CITE REV INTO %' INC -ITT Of MONTICCLLO A"D ANY OTNCR TO WNSNI P�YI LLA GC CI T Y/COVN TY. INC BUILDING OcP•RTMCNT SMALL BC 7110 DUILOIN'i LOLL DCPArrNCt.T OI TMC .ITY Cr MLNTICLLLO. �Na AOM,N,j7RATl1E AUTHORITY 3MALL B[ A .T ATL Cl T1rlE Ii11ILCING Orrl:l AL 30 DES1G- NATCO BY THT APPOINTIMO AUTHORITY. MC APPCIHIING P.I I,.'IT♦ .HALL OL TMC 1'Y ,^JNC1L Or THE .ITY Or MONTI CELLO. PERMITS, INSPCLTIONS AND rCES: 1. ML I1/YANG[ OV►[.HITS AHD CONDUCTION OF ..SP11TIONI SMALL SC AS 1-011.11) r IN CHAP IS 3 Or IML UNIIORH VIJILDINO LOOC. TME PCRrIT rres SMALL SCI TOTAL VALUATION Eu $ 1.010 TO $500.00 $1.75 1501.00 TO $2.000.00 $1.75 FOR THE rIR31 1500.00 /LU/$.75 ro- [AC- ADDITIONAL j 1010.00 on FRACTION THEREOF. TO AND INCLUDo NO $2.000.00. $2.001.00 To $25.000.00 $15.00 FOR INC FIRST $2.000.00 PLUS $j.OD FOR EACH ADDITIONAL $I.00D.OD OR r-ACTIOr TN[REOr. TO AND INCLUDING 125,000.00. $25.001.00 TO 150.000.00 $84.00 FOR INC FIRST 125.000.00 PLUS $2.25 FOR EACH ADDITIONAL 11.000.00 OR T-AETIoN TNc■Lo►, TO AND INCLUDING 150.000.00. 1190.001.00 TO $100.000.00 1140.25 roe THE rIRst $50.000.00 ►LW II. TOR [AEN AODIT IOMAL II.000.W OB /BACTION THEREOF. To AND INCLUDING 8100.000.00. $100.001.00 To 1500.000.00 1215.25 roe THE rIRST 1100.000.00 ►LVO 11.13 FOR EACH ABOITIONAL 11.000.00 ON r■ACTION TMeetor. TO ANO INCLUDING $500,000.00. $500.001,00 AND WP $665.25 roe TNe rIRST $500.000.00 PL Vf I.7S POR E•BM AOBITIOMAL 11.000.00 OR /A ACTION TMLRIOr. 2. SURCMABGKA IN ADDITION TO TNC PERMIT rEE1 e[OVIeEO 1r ITL. 1. ASOIII. THE APPLICANT SMALL PAY • SYRCMA RAL IM TML AMOUNT Fl/CD Or LAV. THE `AMOUNT GCOVIetO Or LAW SHALL O[ •Er1TT[0 •O Rl.U.." TO TML MINE/DTA CDCP•BTMLMT OV L:. 0 r. 4..1-4 A 4_1-6 4-t-4; FIRE ZONE DISTRICTSS ALL A4EAS wITMIN THE CITY OT MONIICELLO SMALL OC IN FIRE ZONE 03- 4-1-5- VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIESS: INC PENALTY DESCRIBED IN THE tA:I/ORM BUILDING CODEI 1976 EDITION. CHAPTER Two. SECTION 205 SMALL BE IN AttPIN0 MITA MINNESOTA STATUTtS 6W.D3/ vHiCH PROviDts TOR A MAX{NUN TINC Of SWO.OD 04 INPRISONNENT POR 90 DAYS. OR BOTH. EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDINANCE: THE EFTCC?IVt DATE Of THIS O40INANCt SMALL BE NOVCNBtR 131, 1978. Ca Z V TO: Gary Wicber and the City Council FROM: Loren D Klein, Building Official DATE: November 8, 1978 At the present time, there are 75 known apartm.nt buildings in Monticello. Of these 75 known buildings, there are duplr.Xes, triplexes and multi -family units (i.e., Bel Mar Apartments - 24 units, Ridgemount Apartments 45 units, Cedarcrest Housing for the Elderly 38 units, etc.) At present., the Building Inspector is designing a systematic and annual procedure for i.nspecti.on of these apartments. one method would be to require rental pr•uprrly registration. (here are a few advantages to this method, which 3 hope to point nut. F i-rst , Rental Property registral ion would be a bet ter• assurance that the inspections would be affecting all the rental prop.•rties, Since they arc all registered. Even for those who do not register their property, there are some ways to insure registration . aenttraI Iy. second, the order in which the pruporlies were registered could also .serve as a systematic order .in which they were .inspected, vine a each registration wuuld be in numerical order. Third, by charging a small fee on an annual basis, when the r.gistrations are due, the cost of providing an inspector could be paid for by the people who use the inspector's sery i ck s, rather than by advalorem taxes. The people who benefit most, the apartment owner, would pay. Each year, preferably January, when the re-rcgistvation would come due, the information on thecae properties could be updated, or also, updating could be done at the owners request, at any time. For properties that changed ownership during a registration year, the fee would have to be negot.lated by the previous and new property owners. Fo: example, if John Doo sold his apartment, house to Bill Smith during July, there would not be a 50% refund to Mr Doe, and a new 50% fee col.ltcted from Mr. Smith. Thin issue would have to be resolved between those two affected people. Most important from the Building Tn,,pettort x view, is that this syst.•m, if adopted, would provide the barks fou syntematir inspections, econ if no fco were c•hnrged, since numerical ordev of registrat iun would be the order in which the property would be inspected. 1 The following information may be useful in making a determination C of whether or not a fee should be charged, and if so, how much. C� Thus far this year, the permit fees have averaged $1,121.20 pet- month ermonth income as oposed to a projected cost of approximately $1,275.00 to operate the department. Next years projected cult is $1,670.00, as compared to a projected income of $1,311.50 per month. If the suggested fee schedule were used for rental property regist- ration, those fees; as you could see, would help to make up some of the difference in the cost of the Housing and Building Departments and the monies these departments generate, th..vuby reducing the amount charged to ad valorem. I am enclosing a copy of a sample ordinance that could be used to implement the registration if adopted. This ordinance could be used In part or in its entirety. 0 4-4-1 CHAPTER 4 RENTAL D'LTLLING REGISTRATION 4-4-2 SE, IION: 4_4_1: ADOPTION 4-4-2: DEFIN171ONS 4-4- : REGISIRA710N REQUIRED. 4_4- : ENFORCEMENT 4-4-}; APPLICABLE L.A.S. 4-4-U: PENALTY CFFEL-IVC DAIS 4-4_1: ADOPTION: THE FOLLOWING RENTAL DWCLLING PC.157RATION ORDINANCE IS AN OR:INANCC REQUIRING THE REGISTRATION OF ALL RENTAL PROPCRTY AND IMVOSINI: A RC:.STRATION FEE FOR EACH UNIT OF THE RENTAL PROPERTY. INE COUNCIL OF TNC .1TY OF MONTICELLO NCSESY ORDAINS THAT IT 13 THE PURPOSE OF THIS ORDINANCC TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC M[ALTM, SAFCTT AND WCLFARC Or THE CITISEMS OF THE CITY Of MONTICELLO WHO HAVC AS THEIR PLACE Or ABODE. • DWELLING UNIT OR ROON fUgNISMCD TO THEN FOR THE PAYMENT Or A RENTAL CMAROC TO ANOTHER. FURTHCR. IT 15 THE INTCNTION Of THIS ORDINANCE THAT A PERMANCNT ✓ODE OF PROTECTING ANC RCSJLATING THE LIVING CONDITIONS OF TMCSC C17IECNS OC CSTADLISHCD. A.D. FURTMCR TO PAOVIUC A NC ANS TO RAI SC RCVCNUC OR FUNDS TO NCL► TNC CITY DEFRAY THE COSTS NECESTARY F.fP INSPECTIONS AND CHfOPCENCNT OF THC UNIFORM HOUSING CODE. DEFIN11IONS: 1. RENTAL PROPEgTy, A SINOLC FAMILY DWELLING, MULTIPLE OWELLINO, OR ROOMING MOYSC. AS OCfINLD IM THIS ORDINANCE. OCCUPIED BY A PERSON OR PERSONS IN THE STATUS GF TENANT. 2. .SHINGLE` FAMILT DW6LL-IND. AS USCG IN TH19 OADINANCC, THE TERM I:TINLLC FANILY- DWELLINU" "CANS A BUILDING, Of ANY SIZE OR TVPC, OCCUPICO SIV ONE ••MILT IN THE 3T A TU5 OF TENANT. 3. _WNLTIPLS DV(LLING, AS USCD IN THIS ORDINANCE. INC TERM 'MULTIPLC LIWELLI:IS MEANS A OUT "0"'0' Of ANY SIE[ OR TYPO. OCCUPIED BY "DQE THAM ONE fA"ILY, CACM IN TNC STATUS OF TCNAIIT. BUT DOCS NOT INCLUCC ROOMING HOUSC. AS CCf IN[D IN THIS ORDINANCE. 4. lck&RT. ONE WNO NAS AS NIS PLACE Of ABODE A DWELLING UNIT ON P004 ITU411131190 TO NIM FOM PAYMENT Of A RCNTAL CNARCC TO ANOTHER. 5, OPERATE. AS USED IN THIS ORDINANCE, THC 'TERM 'OPCRATCM MEANS TO CHARGE A RCNTAL CHARGE IOM TNC USE OT A SIMOLC FAMILY DWELLING OR A UNIT IN A MULTI/LL DWCLLINo OM A SLEEPING MOOM IM A ROOMINO MOUSE. G. UNIT• AS USCO IN THIS OOOINAMCC. INC TEAM "WIT" {MALL MOAN ANY MASITAOLC ROOM OR aROYP OF ADUG owl 40 MASITAS►C ROOMS LOCATCO WITHIN A MULTIPLE DWCLLI"C AND /OAMINO A OIMCLC CONPLEE WIIM fACILITICS WNICM ARC USCG OR INTCMOCU TO 3C USCD FOR LIVING, SLCCPIr1O, COOKING AND EATING. �. (IAp ITA'4E RDy"3 AS YSCO IN THIS OROIMANCC, INC TC'IM fH.31TASLL ROOM 31461.1 MCAN A ROOM OR CNCLOSCO .LOGO SPA,[ USCD 0�1 1'.TCNOED TO OC USCG fOw LIVING, - L PING. COOR IND OM eATINO PURPOSES, C3CLUOING OATMROOMS. TOILCT ROOMS, LAUNDRIES, PANTMICA, fOYERA, COMMUNICATING CORRIDORS, CLOSETS, STON48C APACCS. AND STAIRWAYS. 8. FfMILT. INC TERM °FAMILl" SMALL MCAN AN INDIVIDUAL OR TWO OR MORE PCRSONA 49LATCO BY BLOOD OR MA REI All E. 9• PCRSON, THE TERM HPCRSONR SMALL "CAN ANY NATURAL PCASON. "if MCIRS. EICCU- TORB. ADMINI3TRA"R.. OA ASAIGMS. AND ALSO INCLUDCR A VIEW. PARTNEASNIP OM COR- POMATION. ITS OR TMCI• SUCCCSSOAS OR •3310113, OR INC AGENT Of ANY OF INC AFORESAID. 10. &g.'"a N9m'SL A BUILDING OR STRUCTURC PROVIDING A ROOM OA ROOMS IATLMOCL FOA LAVIMO ANO OLL[PIMO TO PCR SONS IN THC STATUS Of 1C116NT. 1"13 TERM SMALL IN- C LUOC OGAROINO NOUSCA. LOOOIMO MOUSES, ,AATCRNITV HOUSES ANO SONORITY "OLSts, OUT DOCS 1401 INCLUDC HOTCLS 00 MOTCLB LICENSED Or INC STATC Of MINNCOOIA. 4_4.2 11. SLECFING ROOM„ A ROOK OR CNCLOSCD FLOOR SPACE IN A ROOMING WOUSC. 41h CCf#NED iN i041S O,p,"ANCL. USCO OF INYINOCO TO at USED 111"414/LY 9`116 ;LCtP1.4 PURPOSCs. 12. LANDLORD. A ►CRSON OR ENTITY WHO OPERATES A MCNTAL PXOPCMIY, A; CCPtt_u IN TN,S 0104NAMCC. AND WHO IS CN1114LD TO Ike RCNTAL P+Y-i NI(O FAO.. THE Si :IAV T(Si. 4-3: REGISIMATION REQUIRED: /. RCOVIRENENt FROM AND AFTCR 1/#(Tg. NO PERSON SMALL OPt1Alt A ACNTAL P.OPLRIV. IN TM[ CITE Of AONTICCLLO WITHOUT FIRST HAVING PROPCkLY MARC AND riLtV A tC.I-T%A. IID.S11TEMC"I VII. TMC DUILDINO OfrICIAL. ANY PERSON rILINJ SUCH A ACGI'.'.Atg Z•.' S TaT[WLNT TMCQCDY CONSENTS. !O OC ODUNp QT ALL OF TNF. PROP t;ION; Of INS "I O�.tI AIGE. IN INC CASE Of ANY RCNTAL Polo,11ITY. OCCUPICO ON CA PC -opt I/I/19. ;L.I1T4A11_V :T A TEWENT SMALL Be rILCO OV 1f#r Z+J. ANO i+• THE LASE Ot' •LN1aL tA0►EATY D1+-LCT=C 11CAOY rap OCCUPANCY ArTCR I�l/i9. A ACGISTRAIION STATCWENt SHAtL Or :1100 TO THE OCCUPANCY Or THE DWELLING. ,HE R[GIStRAT10N S/ATCMCVT SHALL MA:$ AHL I ICO all roll"1 FURNISHED OV tot DU#Loq NO CrriCiAL roll iUtO ►U1P.3C . AN7 1N.tt SCI FO MTM INC 0OLLO.INO INFORMATION: A. NAME AND R[;IUCNCC OF TNC LA11DL00.D AID. 11 A .0^DOR 411101•. .RAC :. U rl. CLO. ANO INL E. i 1: U D r3:[ T.F'zro,. D. 111( NANO AND ADDRESS Of THE ACNIAI VIOPCRTT. AN; 'NC +ll.•!L•' .1 T. lot NUWPCM Or SLCCP#N" -DON$ TO I'MiCN lot, 5ruf/ -T 104 APPL Sea. L. INCNAME AND A ... el$ .1 THC CARLTAKCR OR NANA.EM RCSPONSIOLE O -t INC MAINT to A NCC AND CARC Or THE MULTIPLE [WELLING OR tOOMIN.. MON;C. D. INC NAME ANO ADORCSS O► TNC LAMOL0RD11 AGENT IDR THC 111tIPT Of NCtII'[s 0► tI OL AT ION. Or T.t PROW I;IONS Or TNIS OND, NANCC. `ME LLMOLOAD Mar rCS 1':N 417E ANV 19-5110 RCsiDIMO IN flit CITY Or MONTICCLto AS MIS At CMT ton THIS PVMPOSC. E. `�SU�CH OTHER INFORMATION AS INC COUNCIL NAT RCOU/KL. 2• EALLUT{DM Pr R[Gt1jN8T10N STATLNLNT, INC RCCISIRATION SHALL BE -ADC %T INC y LANDLOKO (f SVC" LANDLORD is A NATUK AL PLRSONI t9` T"E LANOLONo is A tOa POAATICN. DT OFF IC CK TNCRCOrI Ir TMC LANOLOND Is A P&ATH[KSN. P. DT ONC Or THE PARTNCHS: AMD It THE LANDLORD IS AM UNIMCDRPOKATCD ASSOCIATION* MY INC NAMAGCR OR WANAGING off 1. CCR IWe Rear. RCNCWAL OF RCOISTaATIQNS As ACQUIRED ANNUALLY SY THIS ORDINANCE NAY SC "ADC SY FILL,.. OUT TMC 0.,..,.,a ......L 1OX04 PXOviOtO SY INC sulLuiNU Orr ICI" ID TML LAMOLOND Of ALNTAL PKO►L RTY AND MAILING SAID FORM TO..CTMLR WITH TNC ACOuI PCO $1 I: ICE TO TMC BUILDING OFFICIAL. 3• A_N.gyq R6s13T1tTIP"t LO CORNCINO WITH THE •CAR I*. INC NCOssTRAIION Or ALL RENTAL DWELLING" RC01steAEG FDA TNC PRCVIOU! YEAR SHALL SC Rt"tVta NOT LAtLM TMA" TNC 3Dr" DAY or JAMUAMT Or eACN YCA0.. 4. TRANSFERS. CVCIIY NCV LANDLORD Of A RCNIAL PRO►EMTY. (IANCTMER As FCC OVNta, CONTMAL'7 rURCNASCM. Lessee $USLCTTINO THE LNTINC OWCLLIMQ. OR ol"talrlse 6NT41LED TO Not St SHALL MCG#STCA DCFONC TAKING POs1tSSiON. NO RCOISTRa,Ia. ft; !HALL Ile RLOVINtO Or INC NEW LANDLORD I. TMC YLaX or PUACNASC PROVIOCO INC PREVIOUS LANDLORD MAS PAID INC 4E01lTAA11011 FEE. y. 67CCIISINATION ret. ERCLPT AS MAY Or. PROVIDCO OTHCRWISC DT TMC CI1V�OU$4 TNr foil OWIRS fees SMALL Be PAID sY TNL LANDLORD !Y INC 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 0► CAC. YEARS A. FOR M sorlI FAMILY DWELLING, flit NCOISTRAT IoM ICL ►IP "Can sNALL OC /0.00. O.Fou TNt FIRST UNIT OF A MULTIPLC OWCLLIMGI THC 0.C. 14174411 IOM ICI to ICAR SMALL st $10.00. Eves, UNIT TMCRtarTCR #" lti0 "ULtiPI; OKil/044 SNAtL st CNAMGCO A RCOISTRAIION fee Of $2.00 PER TCA.. C. TME 41"6141"1 OF ANNUAL ACGISTRATION fee rOa AOClNI"G Mouses SHALL me A! rOL. LOWII 1 TQ -3 SLCL►IMO ROo"s. X10.00 PCR TEAR( G TO 10 wepltr! ROOMS. 1110.E+0 Pts Y;iRt of $LCC►it(S at001{s ANO AOOVC. {30.00 Pts Ye&A. 0. RtM,ML P110CRIV WHICH to LiCCNsCD As A HN(RSINO HoMtt OA As a *ae AsDiNs C CANC NOMeP UMOLN THE PROVISIONS Or TNC STATC OF MINICOD18 sNALL s; CACMPT FROM INC ACSISIRATION FCC RCOUINCD UNDCs A. OF EUSDtV#/ION y. hese#N. a U-4-3 b -b-1 E• IF OCCUPANCY OF THE RL MT AI 14011.77 SMALL NOT CG.'..0 PRIOR TO JULY 1 C 0/ A CALCNDAR TCAR, THE REGISTRATION FEE REQUIRED SMALL BE REDUCED BY 110%. ENFORCEMENT: IN ORDER TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH THE REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS. THE BUILDING OPFIC IAL OR HIS A3513TANTS SMALL HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ENTER ANY BUILDING. AT REASONABLE TIMES AND UPON FIVE (5) DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE TENANT(S). TO DC TCRMIMC I/ OA10 BUILDING 19 OPERATED AS A RENTAL PROPERTY AS DEFINED IN SECTION OR TO ENFORCE THE UNIfORN HOUSING COOS, OR DOT". U-11-5: APPLICABLE LAWS- REGISTRANTS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO ALL OF THE ORDINANCES Of THE CITYOF MONTICELLO AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA RCLATINO TO DWELLINGS: AND. THIS OPOINANCC SMALL MOT BE l...T.U.0 OR INTERPRETED TO !UPC. SCD. ANY OTMCP SUCH APPLICABLE ORDINANCE OA LAY. b-4-6: PENALTY: ANY PERSON, FIRM, CORPORATION. OR PARTNERSHIP WHO SMALL VIOLATE ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE GUILT- OF AN OFFENSE AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 204 OF THE UNIFORM HOUSING COD.. 1976 EDITION. 4-4-7: EFFECTIVE DATE: TMC EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCC SHALL BE NDVENBER 13. 1978. C+ NONTICELLO PUBLIC NARKS DFPARMENT ( Work Report �•'/ October 23, 1978 - November 10, 1978 Water/Wastewater 1. Hauled sludge in preparation for winter (Oct. 23 - Nov. 10) 2. Installed new water meters (4) 3. Tapped water line for Stow -way 4. Inspected and located for local diggers (10) 5. Assisted with yearly maintenance work and draining of water tower (Nov. 2 6. Chocked main valves and stand pipes for 77-3 project Streets/Parks 1. Began construction of salt storage bin 2. Continued repairing and replacing street signs (Oct. 24 - Nov. 3) C� 3. Hauled out Class 5 and retaining posts from boulevard in Fast Bridge Park (Oct 23) 4. Swept business district streets (Oct. 27 k Nov. 3) 5. Equipment repair on sweeper - replaced crankshaft and gears (Nov. 8 d 9) 6. Dutch Elm Disease program - filling etusp holes and began tutting and removing 5 trees. 7. Completed street patching and lowering manholes A c_ MONTICELLO KJNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE COMPARATIVE OPERATING STATEMEItT SEPTEMBER 30, 1975 c P'r OFF -SALE SALE; Liquor $155,747 Wine 37,750 Beer 220.774 SUBiVTAL $4.14,271 Miscellaneous Merchandise TOTAL 20 665 $434,636 Less: Freight MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE TOTAL CROSS PROFIT OPERATING EXPENSES Salaries STATEM 4T Store se Repairs and Maintenance Utilities 9-30-78 Ptme For the Nine Months Ending 9-30-77 Axel GROSS Insurance Depreciation GROSS Audit Expense SALES Fringe Benefits TO SALES Advertising Expense SALES NSF Cheeks TO SALES Miscellaneous Expense $34,307 Professional Fees $141,779 TOTAL OPERATING M021SE $30,767 OPERATING INCOME 25,49a OTHER EXPENSES 32.45 Bond Interest Expense 19,761 U. C. Fund Reimbursement 28.0 TOTAL OTHER EXPENSES 40,297 OTHER INCOME 172.632 Cash Over (Short) 1.215 Interest Income - Investments $327,415 Interest Income - Contract :or Deed TOTAL OTHER 1VOW E $341,873 NET INCOW,. 9,683 CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE OOMPARATM OPERATING STATEM 4T For the Nine Months Fhding 9-30-78 For the Nine Months Ending 9-30-77 COST OF GROSS PER WIT COST OF GROSS PER CENT SALES PROFIT TO SALES SALES SALES PROFIT TO SALES $121,440 $34,307 22.02 $141,779 $111,012 $30,767 21.7 25,49a 12,252 32.45 27,462 19,761 7,701 28.0 180 4 40,297 18.25 172.632 101,.417 1.215 18.1 $327,415 9 ,5 0.9- $341,873 $272,190 9,683 20.4 15.115 ___5.250 25.78 16 588 12.234 y.354 26.2 $342,530 $92,51306 2119 $35i,461 $284,424 $74,037 20.6 . $89,568 _ 20.E $72,0530� $ 24,725 $ 22,298 1,278 1,438 410 104 3,732 3,978 364 357 736 970 8,635 5,346 59660 5,532 1,230 1,100 3,730 3,412 687 350 78 150 593 299 695 _ 3 $52,553 12.09 $��$ 4 12.7 $37,015 8.51 $22 76 7.4 $ 8,733 $ 9,525 991 1,370 $ 9,724 2.23 $10,895 3.0 $ (9) $ (93) 2,568 6,816 3,978 5.355 $ 6.537 1.50 $12.073 3.4 $33,828 7.79 $27.339 7.3 CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COU177Y MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE BALANCE SHEET For the Month Ending 9-30-78 ASSETS CURRENT ASSETS Cash -Operating Fwd Cash -Sinking Fwd Cash -Construction Fund Change Fluid Petty Cash Investments -Operating Inventory Investments -Sinking Prepaid Insurance Bond Discount Rebates Receivable Contract for Deed Receivable TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS FIXED ASSETS Cost Al Derr Building Improvement TIM-, 2-5 4 $ 8,832 Furniture & Fixtures 39,716 10,018 Parking Lot 6,436 1,051 Land Costa 5,892 — TOTAL FIXED ASSETS 00,298 $ 19,901 TOTAL ASSETS LIABILITIES & EQUITY CURRENT LIABILITIES Accounts Payable $ 20,479 Salaries Payable — Pavroll Taxes Payable 1,518 Bond Interest Payable 1,863 Sales Tax Payable 2,433 TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES LONG TERM LIABILITIES Bonds Payable TOTAL LIABILITIES EQUITY Balance 1-01-78 $184053 Not Income Thru 9-30-78 33,828 TOTAL EQIITY TOTAL LIABILITY & EQUITY A $ 34,446 (23,163) 6,615 600 100 66,029 54,675 42,304 3,567 2,805 899 43,200 Net $139,422 29,698 5,385 5,892 $ 26,293 $234,077 $1801392 $4 4.4744.474 $170, 000 $196,293 $218,181 $414.474 Ah . REULAR MEETING WFrICELLO CITY COUNCIL October 23, 1978 - 7:30 P.M. Members Present: Gene Walters, Arve Grimsmo, Dan Blonigen, Phil white. Members Absent: C. 0. Johnson 1. Public Hearing - Consideration of Variance Reauest for Minimum Lot Size and Subdivision by Arne Kolbiornsen. Mr. Arne Kolbjornsen has requested a variance of approximately 700 square feet to subdivide a lot within C eekside Terrace into two parcels. The current lot size is 26,482 square feet, and the proposed subdivision would create two lots of approximately 9,300 sq. ft. and 17,182 sq. A variance is necessary since the minimum lot size in an R-2 zone is 10,000 sq. ft. The following citizens were heard at the Public Hearing: Donna Larson - indicated to the Council that the neighbors had opposed the original rezoning request from R-1 to R-2 for the duplex approxi- mately a year ago, and felt that the Council shouldn't grant an addi- tional variance loy allowing the subdivision of the same lot now. Jim Larson - stated that he was under the impression at the rezoning hearing last year that the lot was too small to have two single family homes situated on, and that was the primary reason why the lot was originally rezoned from R-1 to Rr2 to allow for the duplex. Mr. Larson also felt strong opposition to the subdivision and did not think that if the lot was too small last year for two single family homes, how it could be big enough now for a duplex and a single family home. Gilbert Stickford - thought that the original duplex proposed for this lot was to be owner -occupied, but never was, and opposed any subdlvision of this lot because of its size. Steve Johnson - Mr. Johnson felt that the zoning ordinances for the City should protect the neighbors in the area, and that most of the people did purchese their lots and homes with the assumption that the area was singlo family residential and would remain as such. Opposed to any subdivision. Earl Swan - was opposed to any subdivision and also indicated that he was under the assumption that the duplex was to be owner -occupied. Based primarily on Lho fact that this particular lot was initially rezoned from R.1 to R-2 to allow for the duplex because of the initially large square footage of the lot, motion was made by P. White, seconded by A. Grimsmo and unanimously carried to deny the subdivision request and minimum lot size request for Mr. Ame Kolbjornsen. /a Cowicil Minutes - 10/23/73 I 2. Public Hearing - Consideration of Variance Request of Side,yard Setback Requirements - Tadako Pratt. C Tadako Pratt, who lives at 301 W. River Street, requested a variance to build an attached garage up to the east property line of her residence. Presently, her home is 2' from the property line on the east side, and she merely would like to move her garage which she plans to attach to the existing house, two feet (21) ahead of the existing house. The Planning Commission, at their last meeting, upon hearing no objec- tions, recommended approval of this variance. Motion was made by A. Grimsmo, seconded by D. Blonigen and unanimously carried to approve the sideyard variance request for Tadako Pratt. 3. Public Hearing for the Consideration of a Variance Request for an Off - premise Sign - Electro Industries. Mr. Bill Seefeldt, of Electro Industries, requested a variance to allow an off -premise sign for his company to be put on the property of the Monticello Rod & Gun Club. A letter has been received from the Monti- cello Rod & Gun Club indicating that they have agreed to provide per- mission to Mr. Seefeldt for the sign. A variance request was necessary since City ordinances do not allow any off -premise sig: advertising a product or another firm. Part of the Council discussion concerned whether a variance of this type would create a precedent for future off -premise signs. Based primarily on the fact that Electro Industries is located in a hard -to -find place and that the sign would be a mall directional type sig:, motion was made by P. White, seconded by D. Blonigen to approve the variance request for the off -premise sign. Voting in favor: P. White, D. Blonigen, A. Grimsmo. Opposed: G. Walters. Variance request was denied since a 4/5'3 vote is necessary. 4. Consideration of Temporary Use Permit to Allow LirJ% Manufacturing within an R-2 Zone - Decorative Services. Mr. Bill Schockor, of Decorative Services, requested a temporary use permit to allow Decorative Services to utilize one room on the second floor of the Oakwood Elementary School for use by his manufacturing firm. Mr. Schockor indicated that the request was a temporary one in nature and would last only for up to one year, or until his new building can be constructed in Oakwood Industrial Park. W. Schackor also informed the Council that only one room would be used and that no re- modeling of the school would be necessary. Motion was made by A. Grimsmo, seconded by D. Blonigen and unanimously carried to approve the temporary use permit for light manufacturing in an R-2 zone for Decorative Services with a ono -year time limit. - 2 - Council Miinutes - 10/23/73 5. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development - Mbnticello I-94 Tri -Plaza. Mr. Sam Peraro proposed that the property he owns southeast of the inter- section of I-94 and Highway 25 be granted a conditional use permit :'or a Planned Unit Development. Mr. Peraro indicated that the request for a PUD was to allow for the eventual construction of two restaurants along with the Vance's Amoco Gasoline Station, which is currently under construction on the property. The primary reason for the request to go to a PUD was that Mir. Peraro intended to continue ownership of the entire three acres, and by allow- ing for a PUD instead of going into a subdivision, more flexibility is given the developer in making better use of the parcels of land for parking requirements, landscaping, etc. Additionally, under a suhdivi- sion, all parcels must front on a public right-of-way, and thus, th•a property in question would probably only have two parcels instead o: the three that are allowed under the PUD plan. Motion was made by D. Blonigen, seconded by P. White and unanimously carried to approve the conditional use permit for Mr. Peraro's Planned Unit Development, contingent upon the plan including all recommendations made by the consulting City Planner, Howard Dahlgren &. Associates. 6. Consideration of Rezoning and Conditional Use Permit for a 24 -Unit Apartment - Ken Krienke. t� Mr. Ken Krienkc applied for a rezoning and conditional use permit to allow for the construction of a 24 -unit apartment building on the south- west corner of the J. R. Culp farm located south of I-94 on Highway 25. C4 Currently, the property is zoned R-1 and would require an R-3 zoning and a conditional use permit since over 12 units are proposed. Mir. Krienke indicated that he is planning to build a low to moderate - income project with Fanners Home Administration Funds which would be a subsidized housing project for families with income of approximately $11,000 to $16,000 per year. Considerable discussion was had by the Council on whether a need for this type of housing has been surveyed by the developer. Mr. Krienke indicated that he would be doing a survey in the surrounding area including St. Cloud and Wright County, if such property was rezoned for an eventual apartment house. Council consensus indicated that possibly study figures should be made prior to granting of a conditional use permit or rezoning, as members would like to know where the possiblo tenante would be coming from. By Council consensus, this item was tabled for approximately three weeks to enable more information to be gathered on the need for such sub- sidized housing and where such tenants may come from. - 3 - Council !•lLnutes - 10/23/73 7. Consideration of an Ordinance Amendment to Allow Jewelry Stores as a Permitted Use within a B-3 Zone. Mr. Dan Poirier requested an ordinance amendment to allow a jewcliy s;,ore to be located within a B-3 Zone. Mr. Pcirier was proposing to put a: establishment called Rings 'n Things in Mel Worth's Stor-a-Way Building located on Highway 25 south of I-94. Since City ordinances allow jewelry stores only as permitted uses vithin a B-4 Zone, an amendment to the B-3 Zoning District would have Lo be made to allow for such a use. Council discussed whether such a use should be allowed as a permittca use in a B-3 Zone, but felt that in order to possibly control future jewelry stores, a conditional use approach should be used. As a result, a motion was made by P. White, seconded by D. Blonigen and unanimously carried to amend the zoning ordinances to allow a Jewelry store as a conditional use within a B-3 Zoning District, and also to approve the conditional use permit request to Mr. Dan Poirier for a jewelry store in the Stor-a- Way Building. (See Ordinance Amendment 10/23/78 #61). 8. Consideration of Approval of Development Agreement with Oakwood Industrial Park Partnership Relative to Dundas Road. The City Council previously approved the plans and specifications for improving Dundas Road in Oakwood Industrial Park with a gravel base. These plans and specs were prepared by the City consulting engineer at the request of the Partnership. A development agreement was prepared between the City and Oakwood Indus- trial Park Partnership agreeing that all work to be done shall be com- pleted to the satisfaction and approval of the City Council and also provides for the developer providing a surety bond for lj times the estimated construction costs, said costs being $469425. This bond would be payable in favor of the City of Monticello, and in addition, a cash deposit would have to be placed with the City in the estimated cost of $7,892.00 for administrative costa, legal costs, inspection service and engineering services. Motion was made by D. Blonigen, seconded by P. White and unanimously carried to approve the development agreement for improvements in Oakwood Industrial Park as presented. (See Supplement 10/23/78 #1). 9. Consideration of Conditional Use Permit for Ambulance Carago - Monticollo-Big Lake Community Hospital. The Monticello -Big Lake Community Hospital requested a conditional use Permit to allow the construction of an ambulance garage which would be built to the oast of the current hospital on hospital property. City ordinances require that any additions or any facilities related to a hospital are required to go through a conditional use permit process. =37 Council Minutes - 10/23/78 The Planning Commission held a special meeting just prior to the City Council's meeting, but tabled any action on the request since definite plans were not made available by the Hospital regarding location and whether it was a temporary garage facility. As a result, the City Council tabled any action until a future date. 10. Consideration of Allocation of Anti -Recession Fiscal Assistance Funds. Monticello recently received $2,317 in anti -recession fiscal assistance funds in 1978. These Federal funds are to be used for the purpose of maintaining basic services and to help defray the cost of general salaries. The amount of anti -recession fiscal assistance funds arc based upon the amount of unemployment in a given area. Motion was made by D. Blonigen, seconded by A. Crimsmo and unanimously carried to approve the allocation of anti -recession fiscal assistance hands in the amount of $2,317 towards the cost of general administrative salaries. 11. Consideration of Ordinance Amendment Relative to the Use of Banners. Pennants and Similar Devices. As was discussed during a previous Council meeting, at least two busi- nesses in the City of Monticello have banners, pennants or similar devices used at their business locations. According to Monticello City Ordinances, such pennants or banners are not allowed except under a temporary use permit for seven (7) days. 1. The Council discussed the possibility of grandfathering for up to one year those businesses now using pennantsin violation of the ordinance and then requiring all future businesses to abide by the ordinance, or whether they should be notified immediately that they must be removed. It was the consensus of the Council that the ordinances should be adhered to, but discussions centered on the length of time to be given the violators to take down the existing banners. While Councilman Blonigen felt that three days was sufficient time to remove the pennants, other council members felt 30 days would be appro- priate. Motion was therefore made by P. White, seconded by A. Grimsmo to notify the property owners that the pennants must be taken down according to City ordinances within 30 days, or the property owner would be cited. Voting in favors P. White, A. Crimsmo, G. Walters. Opposed: D. Blonigen. 12. Consideration of Curb Barrier for Monticello City Maintenance Building. Public Works Director, Mike Rojala, presented a cost estimate for curbing and landscaping at the Maintenance Building parking lot per a recent request by the Council. The ostimated cost to construct curb and gutter around the existing blacktop section of the parking lot at the Maintenance Building was $1,734. This coat estimate was for only improving the exist- ing parking area with curb and gutter and did not include any bituminous surfacing or curb and guttering of the largo balance of the City lot. - 5 - Council Minutes - 10/23/78 The reason for not completing the blacktopping and curb and guttering C, of the balance of the City property is that this way the City can con- tinue to utilize the Maintenance building for stockpiling gravel, salt and sand mix and street sweepings. It was the Council consensus that some sort of curb and gutter improve- ment should be made at the Maintenance Building, but this item was tabled until next spring since it would appear to be too late to start a project of this nature this fall. 13. Approval of Bills. Motion was made by D. Blonigen, seconded by P. White and unanimously carried to approve the bills for the month of October, 1978 as pre- sented. (See Supplement 10/23/78 #2). 14. Approval of Minutes. The Minutes for the Regular Meeting held October 10, 1978, were approved as read. 15. Consideration of Resolqtion Supporting Citv of Richfield Law Suit Con- testing Como,ilsory Binding Arbitration Provisions. The City of Richfield recently requested support of its attempt to contest the compulsory binding arbitration provisions of its union contracts. The City of Richfield is currently appealing to the Minnesota Supreme Court the binding arbitration provisions because the recent decisions have been unfair, inflationary and detrimental to the collec- tive bargaining process. Motion was made by P. White, seconded by D. Blonigen and unanimously carried to adopt a resolution supporting the City of Richfield's fight against compulsory binding arbitration and authorizing a sum of $100.00 to be paid to the League of Minnesota Cities to assist in the financing of appealing this lawsuit to the Minnesota Supreme Court. (See Resolution 1978 #15). Miscellaneous A special meeting of the City Council was scheduled for November 8, 1978 at 7:30 P.M. for the purpose of canvassing the election returns of November 7, 1978. Meeting Adjourned. Rick Wolfstel CAssistant Administrator RW/n a — 6 —